NVIDIA GeForce MX230 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 records an average benchmark score of 6077, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M records 5211. The MX230 sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 30th percentile for the Quadro 4000M.

Q: What is the difference in OpenCL performance between the two cards?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GeForce MX230 scores 5739 against the Quadro 4000M's 5211, a 10.1% advantage for the MX230. This is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded for these two GPUs.

Q: How do the memory buses compare between the two laptops?

A: The Quadro 4000M has a 256-bit memory bus, while the GeForce MX230 uses a 64-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the MX230's memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro's 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective).

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The GeForce MX230 packs 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter on a 74 mm² die, while the Quadro 4000M has 5.9 million per mm² across a 332 mm² die.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GeForce MX230 has a TDP of 10 W and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), while the Quadro 4000M draws 100 W and comes as an MXM module.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The GeForce MX230 lists Vulkan 1.4 support, while the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support recorded. Both support DirectX 12, though the MX230 is rated for 12_1 while the Quadro is rated for 11_0.

Architecture Differences

The two NVIDIA mobile GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations. The GeForce MX230 uses the GP108 chip built on the Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. The Quadro 4000M relies on the GF104 chip from the Fermi architecture, produced by TSMC on a 40 nm node. This process gap explains the dramatic difference in physical characteristics: the MX230 die measures 74 mm² with 1,800 million transistors, while the Quadro 4000M spans 332 mm² with 1,950 million transistors. The transistor density figures highlight the manufacturing advantage: 24.3 million transistors per mm² for the Pascal part versus 5.9 million for Fermi.

The shading resources also differ significantly. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite fewer raw units, the MX230 achieves higher fill rates: 24.50 GPixel/s pixel rate and 24.50 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 6.650 GPixel/s and 26.60 GTexel/s for the Quadro. The MX230's FP32 throughput reaches 783.9 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 4000M manages 638.4 GFLOPS. The MX230 also records FP16 performance at 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64), while the Quadro has no FP16 rating.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. Both cards carry 2 GB of GDDR5, but the Quadro 4000M uses a 256-bit bus for 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX230's 64-bit bus yields 48.06 GB/s. The MX230 compensates with much faster memory clocks: 1502 MHz versus 625 MHz. The bus interfaces also differ: the MX230 connects through PCIe 3.0 x4, while the Quadro 4000M uses MXM-B (3.0). API support follows the generational split, with the MX230 offering DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 4000M lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head comparison between these two GPUs, the Geekbench OpenCL test. The GeForce MX230 scores 5739, beating the Quadro 4000M's 5211 by 10.1%. This is the MX230's only win in the head-to-head set, giving it a 1-0 advantage. The OpenCL result aligns with the overall average benchmark scores: the MX230 averages 6077 against the Quadro's 5211, a gap of roughly 16.6% based on the recorded averages.

To put these numbers in context, the MX230's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078 (a 0% delta), the Quadro P2000 at 6049 (0.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019 (1% behind). The Quadro 4000M's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 760M at 5236 (0.5% behind), the Radeon R7 M260X at 5161 (1% ahead), and the Quadro K3100M at 5154 (1.1% ahead). These comparisons show that while the MX230 sits in a slightly higher performance tier, both GPUs occupy the lower-middle range of the overall GPU distribution.

The single benchmark result suggests that the MX230's architectural advantages, particularly the newer process node and higher clock-driven throughput, translate into a meaningful but not overwhelming lead. The Quadro 4000M's wider memory bus and larger number of shading units do not overcome the Pascal part's efficiency gains in this test.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX230 | NVIDIA Quadro 4000M |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Fermi |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 40 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 1,950 million |

| Transistor Density | 24.3M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1519 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1531 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 336 |

| TMUs | 16 | 56 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 24.50 GPixel/s | 6.650 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.50 GTexel/s | 26.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 783.9 GFLOPS | 638.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64) | Not specified |

| TDP | 10 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2019-02-20 | 2011-02-21 |

| Predecessor | Not specified | Quadro FX Mobile |

| Successor | Not specified | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

Both cards share 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, OpenGL 4.6 support, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce MX230 wins in raw compute performance. Its FP32 throughput of 783.9 GFLOPS exceeds the Quadro 4000M's 638.4 GFLOPS by 22.8%. The pixel rate advantage is even more pronounced at 24.50 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s, a 268% lead. The MX230 also delivers higher memory clock speeds, more modern API support including Vulkan, and a 10.1% OpenCL benchmark win.

The Quadro 4000M wins in memory bandwidth. Its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth is 66.5% higher than the MX230's 48.06 GB/s, thanks to the 256-bit bus. The Quadro also has more shading units (336 vs. 256), more TMUs (56 vs. 16), and more ROPs (32 vs. 16). These resources could benefit workloads that are sensitive to memory parallelism or texture-heavy operations, though the benchmark data does not capture such scenarios directly.

The MX230 wins on efficiency by a wide margin. Its 10 W TDP against the Quadro's 100 W means a tenfold reduction in power draw. The newer process node, 14 nm versus 40 nm, drives the density and efficiency improvements. The MX230 also has a lower transistor count yet delivers higher FP32 output, confirming the architectural efficiency of Pascal over Fermi.

The Quadro 4000M's release date of 2011-02-21 versus the MX230's 2019-02-20 shows an eight-year gap, though both are now end-of-life products. The Quadro's successor is listed as Quadro Kepler-M, while the MX230 has no listed successor in the database.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is the stronger performer. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark by 10.1%, holds a 6077 to 5211 average score advantage, and delivers higher FP32, pixel rate, and memory clock figures. Its 35th percentile standing versus the Quadro's 30th percentile confirms its higher placement among all GPUs.

The MX230 suits users prioritizing compute performance, modern API support, and low power consumption. Its 10 W TDP makes it appropriate for thin-and-light systems where thermal and battery constraints dominate. The Vulkan 1.4 support and DirectX 12_1 capability position it for contemporary software titles.

The Quadro 4000M appeals to scenarios where memory bandwidth matters most. Its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth and 256-bit bus provide substantial memory throughput, and the larger number of shading units, TMUs, and ROPs offers theoretical advantages in geometry-heavy workloads. However, the lack of Vulkan support and the older DirectX 11_0 feature level limit its modern software compatibility.

The data indicates that the MX230's newer architecture overcomes the Quadro's resource-count advantages. The Pascal design achieves higher fill rates and compute throughput with fewer units and far less power. The Quadro's higher bandwidth cannot compensate for its lower clock-driven performance in the recorded OpenCL test.

For most workloads represented by the benchmark data, the GeForce MX230 is the recommended choice. The Quadro 4000M remains a niche option for bandwidth-sensitive tasks, but its age, higher power draw, and lower benchmark scores make it the weaker candidate in this comparison. Neither GPU is currently in production, so availability would depend on existing inventory or used markets.