NVIDIA GeForce MX230 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for these two mobile GPUs tells a story of generation versus class. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 and the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M each claim one victory in the recorded tests, but the nature of those wins reveals their distinct design priorities.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the older Quadro K3100M takes the lead. It scores 6154, while the MX230 records 5739. That is a 6.7% advantage for the Quadro, which aligns with its positioning as a professional mobile workstation part. The OpenCL benchmark is compute-oriented, and the Quadro's larger configuration of shading units, 768 versus the MX230's 256, drives it ahead despite its lower clock frequencies. This is not a marginal win; it is a clear, measurable performance gap in raw compute throughput.

However, the Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script. Here, the MX230 posts a score of 6414, decisively beating the Quadro K3100M's 5484. The delta is a massive 17% in favor of the MX230. Vulkan is a modern graphics API that favors newer architectural features and efficient draw call handling. The MX230, built on Pascal, shows its strength here, leveraging its newer design to outpace a GPU that, despite having more hardware resources, cannot keep up in this API. This is the MX230's biggest win, and it is substantial.

The average benchmark scores put the overall picture into perspective. The MX230 has an average score of 6077, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the NVIDIA RTX A400 sits at 6078, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6117, and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049. These are all within a 1.7% spread. The Quadro K3100M, on the other hand, has an average score of 5154, which lands it in the 30th percentile. Its closest competitors include the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161) and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211).

The performance difference in average terms is significant. The MX230's average score of 6077 is roughly 18% higher than the Quadro K3100M's 5154. While the Quadro wins the single OpenCL test, the MX230's Vulkan victory and superior average score suggest it is the more consistent performer in the modern benchmark suite. The data indicates that the newer architecture of the MX230, despite its smaller die and lower power target, delivers a better overall experience in these synthetic workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230, with an average score of 6077, outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, which averages 5154.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two in a single test?

A: The largest difference is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the MX230 scores 6414, a full 17% higher than the Quadro K3100M's 5484.

Q: Does the Quadro K3100M win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6154, which is 6.7% ahead of the MX230's 5739.

Q: How does the MX230 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The MX230's average score of 6077 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078, 0% delta) and slightly ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049, 0.5% delta). It trails the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6117) by 0.7%.

Q: How does the Quadro K3100M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K3100M's average score of 5154 is marginally ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161, -0.1% delta) and slightly behind the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211, -1.1% delta).

Q: Which GPU ranks higher in the overall database percentile?

A: The MX230 sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K3100M sits in the 30th percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most users. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is the stronger GPU in the aggregate. Its average benchmark score of 6077 is significantly higher than the Quadro K3100M's 5154. It also claims the more decisive victory in the head-to-head comparisons, winning the Vulkan test by a 17% margin. For general graphics performance and modern API workloads, the MX230 is the superior option.

The Quadro K3100M does have a niche. Its win in the OpenCL test (6154 against 5739) indicates it retains a lead in compute-heavy tasks. This is consistent with its professional Quadro branding, which historically targets workstation applications that rely on OpenCL compute. Users with a specific workload that favors that API might find the older card acceptable, but they would be sacrificing performance everywhere else.

The MX230 also benefits from being a much more recent design. It was released after the Quadro, and its Pascal architecture supports a newer DirectX version (12_1 versus 11_0) and a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.175). The benchmark results reflect this modernity. For any buyer choosing between these two based on recorded performance, the MX230 is the recommendation. Its higher percentile ranking (35th versus 30th) and superior average score make it the better all-around choice.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 uses a 14 nm process and is built by Samsung, while the Quadro K3100M uses a 28 nm process from TSMC. The MX230's die is much smaller at 74 mm², packing 1,800 million transistors, whereas the Quadro K3100M has a larger 294 mm² die with 3,540 million transistors. This results in a vastly different transistor density: 24.3M / mm² for the MX230 versus 12.0M / mm² for the Quadro.

Clock speeds are also different. The MX230 has a base clock of 1519 MHz and a boost clock of 1531 MHz. The Quadro K3100M runs at a fixed 706 MHz for both base and boost. Memory configurations highlight the class difference: the MX230 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K3100M offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s.

The compute resources vary as well. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel and texture rates reflect this: the MX230 achieves 24.50 GPixel/s and 24.50 GTexel/s, while the Quadro K3100M achieves 11.30 GPixel/s and 45.18 GTexel/s. The MX230's FP32 performance is rated at 783.9 GFLOPS, while the Quadro K3100M reaches 1,084.4 GFLOPS.

Power and form factor are major differentiators. The MX230 has a TDP of just 10 W and uses an IGP slot width with no power connectors. The Quadro K3100M has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM Module form factor, also with no power connectors. The bus interfaces differ: the MX230 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the Quadro K3100M uses MXM-B (3.0).

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The MX230 is based on the Pascal architecture, specifically the GP108 chip. The Quadro K3100M uses the Kepler architecture, built on the GK104 chip. This is a fundamental difference in design philosophy and capability.

The Pascal architecture in the MX230 is significantly newer. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Kepler-based Quadro K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The newer API support in the MX230 is a direct contributor to its 17% victory in the Vulkan benchmark. The subtle difference in DirectX feature levels (12_1 versus 11_0) also indicates the MX230 can handle more advanced rendering features.

The manufacturing process is a stark contrast. The MX230 is built on Samsung's 14 nm node, while the Quadro K3100M relies on TSMC's 28 nm process. This process shrink allows the MX230 to achieve a much higher transistor density (24.3M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm²) and operate at much higher clock speeds (1519 MHz base versus 706 MHz) while consuming far less power (10 W versus 75 W).

The memory architecture also differs. The Quadro K3100M has a wider 256-bit memory bus and double the VRAM (4 GB versus 2 GB), giving it more than double the bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 48.06 GB/s). The MX230 compensates with a higher effective memory clock (6 Gbps versus 3.2 Gbps), but the narrow 64-bit bus limits its total bandwidth. The Quadro K3100M's larger memory footprint and bandwidth are typical of a workstation GPU designed for large datasets, but the MX230's newer architecture proves more efficient in modern synthetic benchmarks.