NVIDIA GeForce MX230 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct comparison between these two GPUs, and it is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7289 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 5739 points. That is a 27% advantage for the Quadro 5000, a substantial margin in raw compute throughput.

This result places the Quadro 5000 at the 40th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 7289. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7222, 0.9% slower), the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203, 1.2% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE (7171, 1.6% slower). The Quadro 5000 sits just above this cluster, effectively trading blows with a modern entry-level desktop card.

The MX230, by contrast, averages 6077 across its two recorded benchmarks. Its OpenCL score of 5739 is its weaker result; its Vulkan score of 6414 is notably higher. Even taking the better Vulkan figure, the MX230 does not close the gap to the Quadro 5000's single OpenCL score. The MX230's average sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078, 0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049, 0.5% slower), and the AMD Radeon 760M (6019, 1% slower). The MX230 is essentially tied with the RTX A400, a professional card from a much later era, which shows how far the Pascal architecture's efficiency has come even if absolute performance is lower.

The head-to-head table shows exactly one win for the Quadro 5000 and zero for the MX230. There is no recorded benchmark where the MX230 outperforms the Quadro 5000. This is a clean sweep in the database, though the context of the two products matters: the Quadro 5000 is a dual-slot workstation card from 2011, while the MX230 is an integrated-level mobile part from 2019.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent opposite ends of the design spectrum, both chronologically and physically. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip, built on the Fermi architecture at TSMC's 40 nm process. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. This is a large, power-hungry chip designed for maximum compute in a workstation chassis.

The MX230 uses the GP108 chip, built on the Pascal architecture at Samsung's 14 nm process. It contains 1,800 million transistors in just 74 mm², a density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. The die is roughly one-seventh the area of the Quadro 5000's, yet it still manages a higher raw FP32 throughput: 783.9 GFLOPS versus 722.3 GFLOPS for the Quadro 5000. The Pascal design is dramatically more efficient per square millimeter and per watt.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth at a 750 MHz memory clock (3 Gbps effective). The MX230 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 48.06 GB/s at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The Quadro 5000 has more than double the memory bandwidth, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Compute resources also diverge. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 11.29 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 22.57 GTexel/s. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 24.50 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 24.50 GTexel/s. Despite having fewer units, the MX230's higher clocks (1519 MHz base, 1531 MHz boost) allow it to exceed the Quadro 5000 in both pixel and texture fill rates.

Power and physical design are starkly opposite. The Quadro 5000 consumes 152 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, a single 6-pin power connector, and a 450 W suggested power supply. It measures 248 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The MX230 consumes just 10 W, uses no power connector, and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor), meaning it is designed to be soldered onto a laptop motherboard with no discrete card footprint.

Interface and outputs also tell the story. The Quadro 5000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs. The MX230 uses PCIe 3.0 x4 and its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they are handled by the laptop's embedded controller rather than the GPU itself. API support favors the MX230: it supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 5000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 5000 wins decisively in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 27% lead over the MX230 in the Geekbench OpenCL test reflects its larger memory bus, higher bandwidth, and greater shading unit count. For tasks that rely on raw GPGPU throughput, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing, the Quadro 5000 is the stronger part in this comparison.

The MX230 wins in several qualitative categories, even though it loses the only recorded benchmark. Its pixel rate is more than double that of the Quadro 5000 (24.50 vs 11.29 GPixel/s), and its texture rate is slightly higher (24.50 vs 22.57 GTexel/s). This suggests the MX230 would handle rasterization-heavy workloads, like light gaming or UI compositing, more smoothly per clock. Its FP32 output of 783.9 GFLOPS also edges out the Quadro 5000's 722.3 GFLOPS, meaning that in compute tasks which are not bandwidth-limited, the newer chip can actually produce more results per second.

The MX230 also wins on API compatibility, supporting Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), which are required for modern games and some compute frameworks. The Quadro 5000's DirectX 11_0 support and absent Vulkan support limit it to older software stacks.

Power efficiency is entirely on the MX230's side. At 10 W versus 152 W, the MX230 delivers its performance at roughly 6% of the power draw. This makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermal limits are critical. The Quadro 5000 requires a desktop workstation with active cooling and a robust PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher raw compute score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7289 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 27% higher than the MX230's 5739 in the same test.

Q: Does the MX230 outperform the Quadro 5000 in any recorded benchmark?

A: No. The database records one head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), and the Quadro 5000 wins it. The MX230's Vulkan score of 6414 is higher than its OpenCL score, but there is no direct Vulkan comparison recorded for the Quadro 5000.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Quadro 5000 has 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth on a 320-bit bus, while the MX230 has 48.06 GB/s on a 64-bit bus. The Quadro 5000 provides more than double the memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro 5000 is rated at 152 W with a dual-slot cooler and a 450 W suggested power supply. The MX230 is rated at 10 W with no power connector and is classified as an IGP.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern APIs?

A: The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the transistor densities of each chip?

A: The Quadro 5000 (GF100, 40 nm) has 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, a density of 5.9M per mm². The MX230 (GP108, 14 nm) has 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, a density of 24.3M per mm².

The Verdict

The database makes one thing clear: in raw OpenCL compute, the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 is the faster GPU. Its 27% lead over the MX230 is unambiguous, and its 40th percentile standing versus the MX230's 35th confirms it sits in a higher performance tier overall.

However, the verdict is not a simple recommendation of one over the other. The Quadro 5000 is a 152 W, dual-slot workstation card from 2011, with 2.5 GB of memory and a 320-bit bus. It is end-of-life, requires a desktop chassis with a 450 W PSU, and lacks Vulkan support. Its launch MSRP was 2,499 USD. The MX230 is a 10 W IGP from 2019, with 2 GB of memory and a 64-bit bus, designed for laptops with no discrete power connector.

For a user running OpenCL-accelerated professional workloads on a stationary workstation, the Quadro 5000 offers the higher score and the memory bandwidth to feed large datasets. For a user needing a low-power mobile GPU with modern API support, the MX230 is the only practical choice, despite losing the compute benchmark. The data shows that the Quadro 5000 wins on performance, while the MX230 wins on efficiency, portability, and software compatibility. The correct pick depends entirely on the form factor and workload, not on which card is "better" in isolation.