NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a clear split: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M dominates the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 in every recorded head-to-head test. The MX230 holds zero wins across the two shared benchmarks, while the GTX 980M takes both. This is not a close contest by any metric available in the database.

The GTX 980M wins decisively in compute-oriented workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 23,832 against the MX230's 5,739, a delta of -75.9% from the MX230's perspective. That is a massive gap, roughly four times the compute throughput. For Vulkan workloads, the GTX 980M scores 17,703 versus 6,414, a -63.8% delta. Both tests point to the same conclusion: the GTX 980M is the superior part for any GPU-accelerated task, whether that involves general compute or graphics API workloads.

The MX230, by contrast, has no benchmark category where it comes out ahead. Its only advantage lies outside raw performance: it is a 10 W part, whereas the GTX 980M has no recorded TDP in the database. The MX230 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the GTX 980M is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface. For thin-and-light portables where power draw is the limiting factor, the MX230's 10 W figure is the only performance-relevant number that works in its favor. However, in terms of measured benchmark scores, the GTX 980M wins every single comparison.

The percentile data reinforces this hierarchy. The MX230 sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 980M sits at the 31st percentile. Interestingly, the MX230 has a higher percentile despite losing every head-to-head test. This is because the percentile is computed against the full GPU population, and the MX230's average benchmark score of 6,077 is higher than the GTX 980M's average of 5,308. The GTX 980M's raw peak scores are far higher, but its average is dragged down by a wide spread across many tests, including older DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 results. The MX230 has only two recorded benchmarks, both modern API tests, which skew its average upward.

In practical terms, the GTX 980M is the clear winner for gaming and compute. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (average score 5,317, delta -0.2%), the GeForce 840M (5,322, -0.3%), and the GeForce 940M (5,284, +0.5%). The MX230's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6,078, 0%), the Quadro P2000 (6,049, +0.5%), and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6,117, -0.7%). The MX230 clusters with workstation and integrated parts, while the GTX 980M clusters with older mobile gaming GPUs. The use case split is simple: the GTX 980M for performance, the MX230 for low-power integration.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial, reflecting different design goals and different eras. The MX230 uses the GP108 chip built on Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The GTX 980M uses the GM204 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference alone is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm means the MX230 packs transistors at nearly double the density, 24.3 million per square millimeter versus 13.1 million for the GTX 980M.

The raw silicon scales tell the story of two very different designs. The MX230 has 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The GTX 980M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. That is nearly three times the transistor count and more than five times the die area. The MX230 is a small, efficient chip designed for low-power laptops. The GTX 980M is a large, high-performance chip designed for gaming notebooks. The transistor density figures confirm this: the MX230 is dense and modern, while the GTX 980M is sparse and older.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The GTX 980M has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is 6 times the shading units, 6 times the TMUs, and 4 times the ROPs. The pixel rate reflects this: the GTX 980M pushes 72.13 GPixel/s versus the MX230's 24.50 GPixel/s. Texture rate is even more lopsided: 108.2 GTexel/s versus 24.50 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations are completely different. The MX230 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 980M ships with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. That is four times the memory capacity, four times the bus width, and more than three times the bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ: the MX230 runs at 1519 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost, while the GTX 980M runs at 1038 MHz base and 1127 MHz boost. The MX230 has higher clocks, but the GTX 980M's massive parallel resource advantage overwhelms that clock advantage.

Vector throughput tells the same story. The MX230 delivers 783.9 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the GTX 980M delivers 3.462 TFLOPS. The MX230 also lists FP16 performance at 12.25 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the GTX 980M has no recorded FP16 figure. The GTX 980M's FP32 output is roughly 4.4 times higher, which matches the shading unit ratio.

Both parts share the same API support: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both are end-of-life products. The GTX 980M has a predecessor (GeForce 800M) and a successor (GeForce 10 Mobile), while the MX230 has no recorded predecessor or successor. The GTX 980M was released on 2014-10-06, while the MX230 came later on 2019-02-20. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The GTX 980M wins decisively with a score of 23,832 versus the MX230's 5,739, a delta of -75.9% from the MX230's perspective.

Q: Does the MX230 have any benchmark win over the GTX 980M?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the MX230 and two wins for the GTX 980M across the two shared head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The GTX 980M offers 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the MX230 offers 48.06 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The MX230 runs at 1519 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost, higher than the GTX 980M's 1038 MHz base and 1127 MHz boost. Clock speed alone does not compensate for the GTX 980M's larger resource pool.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MX230 has a recorded TDP of 10 W, while the GTX 980M has no TDP figure in the database. The MX230 is an integrated processor (IGP) with no power connectors, while the GTX 980M is an MXM module also with no power connectors listed.

Q: How do the two compare in overall GPU percentile ranking?

A: The MX230 sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, slightly above the GTX 980M's 31st percentile. This reflects the MX230's higher average benchmark score of 6,077 versus 5,308 for the GTX 980M, despite the GTX 980M's higher peak scores.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every hardware specification. Here are the fields where the data shows a direct difference:

• Chip: GP108 (MX230) versus GM204 (GTX 980M)
• Architecture: Pascal (MX230) versus Maxwell 2.0 (GTX 980M)
• Generation: GeForce MX (2xx) (MX230) versus GeForce 900M (GTX 980M)
• Process node: 14 nm (MX230) versus 28 nm (GTX 980M)
• Foundry: Samsung (MX230) versus TSMC (GTX 980M)
• Transistors: 1,800 million (MX230) versus 5,200 million (GTX 980M)
• Die size: 74 mm² (MX230) versus 398 mm² (GTX 980M)
• Transistor density: 24.3M per mm² (MX230) versus 13.1M per mm² (GTX 980M)
• Base clock: 1519 MHz (MX230) versus 1038 MHz (GTX 980M)
• Boost clock: 1531 MHz (MX230) versus 1127 MHz (GTX 980M)
• Memory clock: 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective (MX230) versus 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective (GTX 980M)
• Memory size: 2 GB (MX230) versus 8 GB (GTX 980M)
• Memory bus width: 64 bit (MX230) versus 256 bit (GTX 980M)
• Memory bandwidth: 48.06 GB/s (MX230) versus 160.4 GB/s (GTX 980M)
• Shading units: 256 (MX230) versus 1,536 (GTX 980M)
• TMUs: 16 (MX230) versus 96 (GTX 980M)
• ROPs: 16 (MX230) versus 64 (GTX 980M)
• Pixel rate: 24.50 GPixel/s (MX230) versus 72.13 GPixel/s (GTX 980M)
• Texture rate: 24.50 GTexel/s (MX230) versus 108.2 GTexel/s (GTX 980M)
• FP32: 783.9 GFLOPS (MX230) versus 3.462 TFLOPS (GTX 980M)
• FP16: 12.25 GFLOPS, 1:64 ratio (MX230) versus null (GTX 980M)
• TDP: 10 W (MX230) versus null (GTX 980M)
• Slot width: IGP (MX230) versus MXM Module (GTX 980M)
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x4 (MX230) versus MXM-B (3.0) (GTX 980M)
• Release date: 2019-02-20 (MX230) versus 2014-10-06 (GTX 980M)
• Predecessor: null (MX230) versus GeForce 800M (GTX 980M)
• Successor: null (MX230) versus GeForce 10 Mobile (GTX 980M)

Identical fields include manufacturer (NVIDIA), memory type (GDDR5), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent), DirectX support (12, 12_1), OpenGL (4.6), Vulkan (1.4), power connectors (None), production status (End-of-life), and the absence of ray tracing and tensor cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmarks, and the GTX 980M wins both. The results are not close.

Geekbench OpenCL: The GTX 980M scores 23,832, while the MX230 scores 5,739. The delta is -75.9% from the MX230's perspective, meaning the MX230 delivers only about a quarter of the GTX 980M's OpenCL compute performance. This test exercises general-purpose compute on the GPU, and the GTX 980M's 1,536 shading units and 160.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth simply overwhelm the MX230's 256 shading units and 48.06 GB/s. The MX230's higher clock speeds (1519 MHz base versus 1038 MHz base) cannot bridge a 6x gap in shading unit count.

Geekbench Vulkan: The GTX 980M scores 17,703, while the MX230 scores 6,414. The delta is -63.8%. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics API, and the difference here is slightly smaller than in OpenCL, but still decisive. The GTX 980M's 8 GB of memory and 256-bit bus provide a substantial advantage in texture-heavy and geometry-heavy workloads. The MX230's 2 GB on a 64-bit bus is a severe limitation in modern graphics workloads, and the data shows that constraint in practice.

Contextualizing these results with the nearest rivals helps clarify what each score means. The MX230's average benchmark score of 6,077 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA RTX A400's 6,078 (delta 0%), just above the Quadro P2000's 6,049 (delta 0.5%), and just below the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's 6,117 (delta -0.7%). The MX230 is firmly in entry-level territory, comparable to low-end workstation and integrated solutions. The GTX 980M's average score of 5,308 sits close to the GeForce 930A's 5,317 (delta -0.2%) and the GeForce 840M's 5,322 (delta -0.3%), while slightly above the GeForce 940M's 5,284 (delta 0.5%). Despite its lower average, the GTX 980M's peak scores in OpenCL and Vulkan are far above the MX230's, which is why it wins the head-to-head.

The wins tally is definitive: 0 for the MX230, 2 for the GTX 980M. Every number in the head-to-head section points the same direction. The GTX 980M is the stronger part in raw performance, while the MX230 offers a much lower power draw of 10 W and a newer manufacturing process. For any workload where benchmark scores matter, the GTX 980M is the clear choice. The MX230's role is limited to power-constrained, lightweight portable systems where its modest compute resources are sufficient.