NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes only two shared benchmark tests between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX230: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the GTX 970 dominates decisively. The Geekbench OpenCL result shows the GTX 970 scoring 29,982 against the MX230’s 5,739, a delta of 422.4%. That is not a narrow margin; it is a performance gap of more than five times. The Vulkan test tells a similar story, with the GTX 970 at 20,005 and the MX230 at 6,414, a 211.9% difference. These are the only head-to-head measurements available, and the GTX 970 wins both, giving it a 2-0 record.

What makes these numbers striking is not just the raw scores but what they imply about the architectures. The GTX 970’s OpenCL result is nearly double its Vulkan score, while the MX230’s OpenCL score is actually lower than its Vulkan score. This suggests the GTX 970 has substantially more raw compute throughput that OpenCL can exploit, whereas the MX230 appears more balanced or even better suited to Vulkan’s lower-level API. The delta in OpenCL (422.4%) is roughly double the delta in Vulkan (211.9%), meaning the GTX 970’s advantage grows even larger when the workload stresses general-purpose compute. For a database entry, the takeaway is clear: any application relying on OpenCL compute will see a massive uplift with the GTX 970, while Vulkan-based titles still favor it heavily but by a smaller factor.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the GTX 970 has eleven recorded tests, while the MX230 has only two. The GTX 970’s average benchmark score across all its tests is 7,157, placing it in the 39th percentile of all GPUs. The MX230, despite its much lower raw scores, sits at a 35th percentile with an average of 6,077. The percentile difference is modest (only 4 points) because the MX230’s limited test set may not capture its weakest areas. However, the head-to-head results leave no ambiguity: in shared workloads, the GTX 970 is the clear winner, and the margin is so large that it would take multiple MX230-class parts to match a single GTX 970 in compute-heavy tasks.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 970 than the MX230 in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 970 scores 29,982 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the MX230 scores 5,739. This gives the GTX 970 a 422.4% advantage, meaning it delivers roughly five times the OpenCL performance.

Q: Is the MX230 competitive in any benchmark against the GTX 970?

A: No. In the only two shared tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the MX230 loses both. Its best relative showing is in Vulkan, where it trails by 211.9%, but it still falls far short of the GTX 970.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The GTX 970 has an average benchmark score of 7,157 across eleven tests. The MX230 has an average of 6,077 across just two tests. Despite the large head-to-head gaps, the MX230’s average is only 15% lower because its limited test set does not include the same demanding workloads.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all others?

A: The GTX 970 sits in the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX230 sits in the 35th percentile. This means both are below the median, but the GTX 970 is closer to the middle of the pack.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The GTX 970 wins decisively, scoring 20,005 versus the MX230’s 6,414. The 211.9% delta shows the GTX 970 is more than three times faster in Vulkan.

Q: Does the MX230 have any architectural advantage that could offset its lower scores?

A: The MX230 is built on a smaller 14 nm process with a higher transistor density (24.3M per mm² versus 13.1M for the GTX 970), and it draws only 10 W. However, in actual benchmark results, these advantages do not translate into competitive performance against the GTX 970.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA generations and are built on fundamentally different processes. The GTX 970 uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm node. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 13.1 million per mm². The MX230, by contrast, uses the GP108 chip with Pascal architecture, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm node. It contains 1,800 million transistors on a much smaller 74 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 24.3 million per mm². The newer process node gives the MX230 a density advantage, but that does not translate into performance superiority.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The GTX 970 has 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 56 raster output units. The MX230 has only 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This explains the massive FP32 gap: the GTX 970 delivers 3.920 TFLOPS, while the MX230 manages just 783.9 GFLOPS. The GTX 970 is also far ahead in pixel rate (65.97 GPixel/s versus 24.50 GPixel/s) and texture rate (122.5 GTexel/s versus 24.50 GTexel/s). The MX230 does have a notable feature: it supports FP16 at 12.25 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the GTX 970 has no listed FP16 capability. However, this is a niche feature that does not appear in the shared benchmarks.

Memory architecture is another major split. The GTX 970 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX230 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 48.06 GB/s. The GTX 970’s memory bandwidth is nearly five times higher, which is critical for high-resolution textures and compute workloads. The MX230’s memory clock is slightly lower (1502 MHz versus 1753 MHz), but the bus width difference is the dominant factor. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Specification Differences

| Specification | GTX 970 | MX230 |

|---|---|---|

| Process node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 1,800 million |

| Die size | 398 mm² | 74 mm² |

| Transistor density | 13.1M / mm² | 24.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1050 MHz | 1519 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1178 MHz | 1531 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory bus width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 224.4 GB/s | 48.06 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1664 | 256 |

| TMUs | 104 | 16 |

| ROPs | 56 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 65.97 GPixel/s | 24.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 122.5 GTexel/s | 24.50 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.920 TFLOPS | 783.9 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 148 W | 10 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not listed |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Display outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 267 mm length, 111 mm height, 40 mm width | Not listed |

The GTX 970 is a large, power-hungry desktop card, while the MX230 is an integrated-class mobile GPU with no dedicated dimensions or power connectors. The MX230’s clocks are higher (1519 MHz base versus 1050 MHz), but it has far fewer cores, so the higher clocks cannot compensate. The GTX 970 uses a full x16 PCIe interface, while the MX230 uses x4, which further limits its data transfer capacity. The GTX 970 also has a launch MSRP of 329 USD, while the MX230 has no listed launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970 wins every scenario where raw compute and memory bandwidth matter. Its 3.920 TFLOPS FP32 performance is five times the MX230’s 783.9 GFLOPS, and its 224.4 GB/s bandwidth is nearly five times higher. This makes it the choice for desktop gaming at higher resolutions, GPU compute tasks, and any workload that saturates memory. The 4 GB framebuffer also allows larger textures and more assets in memory compared to the MX230’s 2 GB. In the shared benchmarks, the GTX 970 wins both tests, so there is no measured scenario where the MX230 comes out ahead.

The MX230’s wins are not in performance but in power and form factor. Its 10 W TDP is dramatically lower than the GTX 970’s 148 W, making it suitable for thin laptops without discrete power connectors. It is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), so it requires no slot width, no external power, and no additional cooling beyond what the laptop chassis provides. Its 14 nm process and higher transistor density (24.3M per mm²) show a more modern manufacturing approach, and its FP16 support (12.25 GFLOPS) is something the GTX 970 lacks. For portable devices where battery life and heat are paramount, the MX230 is the only viable option despite its lower scores.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the GTX 970 is the superior performer in every shared benchmark, with a 422.4% lead in OpenCL and a 211.9% lead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 7,157 exceeds the MX230’s 6,077, and it sits higher in the percentile ranking (39th versus 35th). Anyone choosing between these two for gaming, rendering, or compute should pick the GTX 970 without hesitation, provided the system can accommodate its 148 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, 2x 6-pin power connectors, and 300 W suggested PSU.

The MX230 exists for a different purpose entirely. Its 10 W TDP and integrated form factor make it the only choice for ultra-portable laptops where the GTX 970’s physical size and power draw are impossible. The MX230’s higher clock speeds and newer 14 nm process do not overcome its fundamental core deficit, but they do allow it to function within strict thermal limits. The database shows that the MX230’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A400 (0% delta) and the AMD Radeon 760M (1% delta), meaning it performs in line with other low-power mobile solutions. For a desktop user, the GTX 970 is the obvious pick. For a laptop buyer who needs any discrete-class GPU in a thin chassis, the MX230 is the only realistic option, and its performance should be understood as adequate for light tasks rather than competitive with the GTX 970. The verdict, based strictly on the recorded data, is that these GPUs serve completely different markets, and the performance gap reflects that positioning rather than any flaw in the MX230’s design.