NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between these two Pascal-based mobile and desktop parts. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 wins the only direct head-to-head comparison available in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a decisive margin. The GT 1010 scores 6698 points against the MX230’s 5739 points, a 16.7% advantage. That is not a marginal gap; it is a substantial performance lead in the one workload where both chips have recorded scores.

The MX230, however, has a second data point that the GT 1010 lacks entirely. The MX230 posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6414, while no Vulkan result exists for the GT 1010 in the database. This does not mean the GT 1010 cannot run Vulkan, both cards support Vulkan 1.4 per the API listings, but it means the MX230 has a verified cross-platform graphics API score and the GT 1010 does not. For any user prioritizing Vulkan-based titles or compute workloads, the MX230 at least has demonstrated capability in that API, whereas the GT 1010’s Vulkan performance is unmeasured.

In terms of raw compute averages, the GT 1010’s average benchmark score sits at 6698, while the MX230’s average across its two recorded tests is 6077. That places the GT 1010 roughly 10.2% higher on average, but the comparison is slightly unfair because the GT 1010 has only one data point. The MX230’s average includes both its OpenCL and Vulkan results, so the lower Vulkan score drags its average down. If one isolates OpenCL only, the GT 1010 leads by 16.7% as noted. If one weights the MX230’s Vulkan result, the picture becomes more nuanced: the MX230 is within 4.3% of the GT 1010’s OpenCL score when using its best API result.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The GT 1010 dominates in OpenCL compute, which typically maps to productivity tasks, physics simulations, and certain rendering workloads. The MX230, with its Vulkan score, offers a verified path for Vulkan-centric gaming or compute, and its much lower power draw makes it more suitable for thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is scarce. The GT 1010 is a single-slot desktop card, while the MX230 is an integrated-class part for portable devices, so the form factor alone dictates different use cases.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 scores 6698, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 5739. The GT 1010 leads by 16.7% in this test.

Q: Does the MX230 have any benchmark result that the GT 1010 lacks?

A: Yes. The MX230 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6414. The GT 1010 has no Vulkan benchmark recorded in the database, despite both cards supporting Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in average benchmark score?

A: The GT 1010 has an average benchmark score of 6698 (from one test), while the MX230 averages 6077 across its two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan). The GT 1010 is about 10.2% higher on average.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size for both chips?

A: Both the GT 1010 and MX230 use the GP108 chip with 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, fabricated on Samsung’s 14 nm process.

Q: Which card has more ROPs?

A: The MX230 has 16 ROPs, while the GT 1010 has 8 ROPs. This doubles the pixel fill rate on the MX230, which posts 24.50 GPixel/s versus 11.74 GPixel/s on the GT 1010.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each GPU?

A: The GT 1010 has a TDP of 30 W, while the MX230 has a TDP of 10 W. The MX230 consumes one-third the power of the GT 1010.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes exactly one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The results are unambiguous. The GT 1010 scores 6698, the MX230 scores 5739, and the delta is 16.7% in favor of the GT 1010. That is a meaningful performance gap in a compute-oriented workload, indicating that the GT 1010’s higher base clock of 1228 MHz and boost clock of 1468 MHz do not fully explain the difference, because the MX230 actually runs faster at 1519 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost. The GT 1010 wins despite lower clocks, which suggests architectural efficiency or thermal headroom differences, though the recorded data does not specify the cause.

The MX230’s Vulkan score of 6414 is worth comparing to the GT 1010’s OpenCL score, even though they are different APIs. The MX230’s Vulkan result is 4.3% below the GT 1010’s OpenCL score, which means the MX230 is not far off the GT 1010’s peak recorded performance when using its best API. However, this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, and the GT 1010 has no Vulkan data to counter with.

The pixel rate comparison is stark. The MX230 delivers 24.50 GPixel/s, exactly double the GT 1010’s 11.74 GPixel/s. This comes from the MX230 having 16 ROPs versus 8 ROPs on the GT 1010, combined with the MX230’s higher clocks. For fill-rate-bound workloads, such as high-resolution 2D rendering or certain post-processing effects, the MX230 should be substantially faster. The texture rate is nearly identical: the GT 1010 posts 23.49 GTexel/s, the MX230 posts 24.50 GTexel/s, a mere 4.1% difference. Both have 16 TMUs, so the texture rate difference is purely clock-driven.

In raw FP32 compute, the MX230 edges ahead with 783.9 GFLOPS versus 751.6 GFLOPS on the GT 1010, a 4.3% lead. This is curious because the GT 1010 wins the OpenCL benchmark by 16.7%. The FP32 figures suggest the MX230 should be slightly faster in general compute, yet the actual benchmark shows the opposite. This discrepancy may stem from driver optimizations, memory subsystem behavior, or the specific workload characteristics of Geekbench OpenCL, but the recorded data does not explain it. What the data does show is that the GT 1010’s real-world OpenCL performance exceeds its theoretical FP32 advantage.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share many core specifications because they use the same GP108 chip. Both have 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, a 64-bit memory bus, and 48.06 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Both run memory at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective speed. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x4 on both. The API support is identical: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The differences begin with clocks. The GT 1010 runs at 1228 MHz base and 1468 MHz boost. The MX230 runs at 1519 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost. The MX230’s base clock is 23.7% higher than the GT 1010’s base clock, and its boost clock is 4.3% higher. This clock advantage gives the MX230 higher theoretical compute rates: 783.9 GFLOPS FP32 versus 751.6 GFLOPS, and 24.50 GTexel/s versus 23.49 GTexel/s.

The ROP count differs significantly. The GT 1010 has 8 ROPs, while the MX230 has 16 ROPs. This doubles the pixel fill rate from 11.74 GPixel/s to 24.50 GPixel/s. The MX230 also lists an FP16 rate of 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64), while the GT 1010 lists no FP16 capability at all.

Power and form factor diverge sharply. The GT 1010 has a TDP of 30 W, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 200 W. It measures 147 mm or 5.8 inches in length. The MX230 has a TDP of 10 W, is classified as IGP (integrated graphics processor), requires no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed. The MX230 has no dimensions recorded because it is designed for portable devices, with display outputs listed as “Portable Device Dependent.” The GT 1010 offers 1x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 2.0 outputs.

Release dates differ by nearly two years. The MX230 launched on 2019-02-20, while the GT 1010 launched on 2021-01-12. Both are end-of-life production status. The GT 1010 has a predecessor in the GeForce 900 series and a successor in the GeForce 20 series, while the MX230 has neither listed.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture using the GP108 chip. The process node is identical at 14 nm, fabricated by Samsung. Transistor count is the same at 1,800 million, and die size is the same at 74 mm². Transistor density is 24.3 million per square millimeter on both.

The architecture is fundamentally the same, but the implementation differs in two key areas. The ROP partition is different: the MX230 has twice as many ROPs (16 versus 8), which affects pixel throughput. The clock strategy is also different: the MX230 runs at higher clocks despite a much lower TDP of 10 W versus 30 W. This suggests the MX230 was binned for efficiency, while the GT 1010 was designed as a low-cost desktop solution with more thermal headroom.

The FP16 difference is notable. The MX230 supports FP16 at 12.25 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, meaning FP16 throughput is one sixty-fourth of FP32 throughput. The GT 1010 has no FP16 data recorded at all. This is a minor architectural feature, but it indicates the MX230 has some mixed-precision capability that the GT 1010 lacks.

The generation naming differs: the GT 1010 belongs to the GeForce 10 series, while the MX230 belongs to the GeForce MX (2xx) series. Despite this naming difference, they share the same architecture, chip, and memory subsystem. The MX230’s IGP classification and portable-device-dependent outputs reflect its intended role in laptops, whereas the GT 1010’s DVI and mini-HDMI outputs indicate a desktop-oriented design.

No ray tracing or tensor cores are present on either GPU, consistent with Pascal architecture. Both rely on traditional shader-based rendering. The Vulkan support at version 1.4 is identical, and DirectX 12_1 support is the same, meaning neither card has an advantage in API feature level.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload and form factor. The GT 1010 is the better choice for OpenCL compute tasks, as its 16.7% lead in the direct benchmark demonstrates. It also has a higher average benchmark score (6698 versus 6077) and a better percentile ranking (38th versus 35th percentile among all GPUs). For a desktop system with a 200 W PSU recommendation and a single-slot footprint, the GT 1010 is the stronger compute performer.

The MX230 is the better choice for portable systems and for Vulkan-based workloads. Its 10 W TDP is one-third of the GT 1010’s 30 W, making it dramatically more efficient. It has a verified Vulkan score of 6414, which is only 4.3% below the GT 1010’s OpenCL score, and it doubles the pixel fill rate thanks to 16 ROPs. For fill-rate-bound scenarios or thin-and-light laptops, the MX230 is clearly superior.

The nearest rivals in the database reinforce these positions. The GT 1010’s closest competitors are AMD mobile parts: the Radeon R7 M370 (1% below), R7 M460 (1.3% below), HD 7730M (1.8% below), and FirePro M5100 (1.9% above). The MX230’s rivals are more varied: the NVIDIA RTX A400 (0% difference), Quadro P2000 (0.5% below), Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (0.7% above), and AMD Radeon 760M (1% below). The MX230 sits in a tighter competitive cluster, while the GT 1010 has a wider spread.

For users who need a low-power integrated GPU in a laptop, the MX230 is the only viable option between these two, as the GT 1010 is a desktop card. For users building a low-cost desktop with a 200 W PSU and wanting the best OpenCL compute per the database, the GT 1010 wins outright. The MX230’s FP16 support and higher clocks do not translate into OpenCL dominance, so the GT 1010 remains the compute pick. The MX230 remains the efficiency and fill-rate pick.