NVIDIA GeForce MX230 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 represent two distinct eras of GPU design, separated by six years of architectural evolution. The data reveals a surprising outcome: the older Quadro K4000, built on a 28 nm process from 2013, consistently outperforms the newer Pascal-based MX230 from 2019 in the available benchmark suite. This head-to-head comparison shows the K4000 winning both recorded tests, despite the MX230’s superior process node and efficiency metrics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results present a clear, albeit unexpected, hierarchy. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K4000 scores 6816 against the MX230’s 5739, yielding a delta of -15.8% for the MX230. That is a substantial margin—the K4000 is roughly 18.8% faster in raw compute performance on this test. The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though with a narrower gap: the K4000 posts 6964 while the MX230 manages 6414, a 7.9% deficit. Both wins go to the Quadro, which means the data does not favor the newer, more power-efficient part in any recorded workload.

The average benchmark scores corroborate this trend. The MX230 has an average score of 6077, while the K4000 averages 5982. Interestingly, the MX230’s average is actually higher than the K4000’s, despite losing both head-to-head tests. This discrepancy stems from the test mix—the K4000 has a Geekbench Metal score of 4166 (a test the MX230 does not have), which drags its average down. The MX230’s two recorded scores are 5739 and 6414, both above the K4000’s Metal result. What does this imply? The K4000’s OpenCL and Vulkan strengths are significant, but its overall profile is more uneven, while the MX230 delivers more consistent performance across the tests it supports.

When placed against their nearest rivals, both GPUs occupy similar percentile territory. The MX230 sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, with the K4000 just one point behind at the 34th percentile. The MX230’s closest competitor, the NVIDIA RTX A400, scores 6078 with a delta of 0%, meaning the MX230 is essentially tied with it. The K4000’s nearest rival is the Quadro K4000M at 5986 (-0.1% delta), indicating near-identical performance within the same family. The data suggests neither card is a standout in its generation—they are both mid-pack performers, with the K4000’s age showing in its lower percentile but not in its raw OpenCL/Vulkan throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the OpenCL benchmark, and by how much?

A: The Quadro K4000 wins Geekbench OpenCL with 6816 points, defeating the MX230’s 5739 by a margin of 15.8%.

Q: Does the MX230 have any benchmark where it beats the K4000?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), the K4000 wins both. The MX230’s average benchmark score of 6077 is higher than the K4000’s 5982, but that is due to the K4000’s additional Metal score of 4166, which lowers its average.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall performance percentiles?

A: The MX230 ranks at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the K4000 ranks at the 34th percentile. This places them within one percentile point of each other, indicating comparable overall standing despite the K4000’s head-to-head wins.

Q: What is the K4000’s closest rival according to average score?

A: The K4000’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, with an average score of 5986 and a delta of -0.1%. This means the K4000 is essentially performance-identical to its mobile sibling.

Q: Does the MX230’s newer architecture give it an advantage in any API?

A: The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. However, in the Vulkan benchmark, the K4000 still wins (6964 vs 6414), so the newer API version does not translate to a performance victory.

Q: What is the K4000’s launch MSRP?

A: The Quadro K4000 had a launch MSRP of 1,269 USD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The MX230 is built on a 14 nm process at Samsung, packing 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 24.3M per mm². In contrast, the K4000 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 2,540 million transistors spread across a much larger 221 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 11.5M per mm². The MX230’s process advantage is clear—it crams nearly twice the density into one-third the silicon area. This explains its dramatically lower power draw: 10 W versus the K4000’s 80 W.

Memory configurations diverge significantly. The MX230 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth with memory clocked at 6 Gbps effective. The K4000 offers 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, achieving 134.8 GB/s—nearly three times the bandwidth—with memory at 5.6 Gbps effective. The K4000’s wider bus is a legacy of its workstation design, prioritizing throughput over efficiency.

Compute resources tell a complex story. The K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, while the MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. On paper, the K4000 has triple the shading units and quadruple the TMUs. Yet the MX230’s higher clocks—1519 MHz base, 1531 MHz boost—partially compensate. The K4000’s base and boost clocks are not listed, making direct clock comparisons impossible. Pixel rates favor the MX230 at 24.50 GPixel/s versus the K4000’s 12.96 GPixel/s, but texture rates favor the K4000 at 51.84 GTexel/s against the MX230’s 24.50 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 throughput, the K4000 wins decisively at 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 783.9 GFLOPS.

The K4000’s interface and physical design reflect its desktop workstation role: a single-slot card at 241 mm long, requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU, with PCIe 2.0 x16. The MX230 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, its display outputs being portable-device dependent. The K4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the MX230’s outputs are not fixed. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the MX230’s Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1) exceed the K4000’s Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0).

The Verdict

The data does not support picking the MX230 for raw performance. In every head-to-head benchmark, the Quadro K4000 wins, with deltas of 15.8% in OpenCL and 7.9% in Vulkan. For compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL workloads, the K4000 is the clear choice—its 1,244.2 GFLOPS FP32 throughput and 134.8 GB/s bandwidth are simply superior. The MX230’s higher pixel rate (24.50 vs 12.96 GPixel/s) suggests it might handle certain rasterization-bound tasks better, but no benchmark in the data confirms this.

However, the MX230 is not without merit. Its 10 W TDP versus 80 W means it can operate in fanless, ultraportable designs without external power. Its 14 nm process and 24.3M/mm² density show a modern efficiency that the 28 nm K4000 cannot match. The MX230 also supports newer API versions, including Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), which could matter for future software compatibility. Yet, the K4000’s higher average score in its supported tests (OpenCL and Vulkan) and its workstation-oriented memory bandwidth make it the stronger performer in the recorded metrics.

The percentile standings—35th for MX230, 34th for K4000—are nearly identical, suggesting that in the broader GPU landscape, neither card is exceptional. The K4000’s age (released 2013-02-28) and end-of-life status do not diminish its benchmark results, but its 80 W power draw and single-slot form factor limit its use cases. The MX230, released 2019-02-20, is also end-of-life but fits into thin-and-light laptops. For users prioritizing benchmark scores, the K4000 wins. For users prioritizing efficiency and portability, the MX230 is the only viable option—but it will not outperform the K4000 in the tests recorded here.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification. The MX230 uses the GP108 chip on a 14 nm Samsung process, while the K4000 uses GK106 on a 28 nm TSMC process. Transistor counts differ: 1,800 million for MX230 versus 2,540 million for K4000. Die size is 74 mm² versus 221 mm². The MX230 has a base clock of 1519 MHz and boost of 1531 MHz; the K4000 has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory speeds are 6 Gbps effective (MX230) versus 5.6 Gbps (K4000). Memory size is 2 GB versus 3 GB, with bus widths of 64-bit and 192-bit, respectively.

Bandwidth differs massively: 48.06 GB/s for MX230 versus 134.8 GB/s for K4000. Shading units are 256 versus 768, TMUs 16 versus 64, and ROPs 16 versus 24. Pixel rate is 24.50 GPixel/s versus 12.96 GPixel/s, while texture rate is 24.50 GTexel/s versus 51.84 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 783.9 GFLOPS versus 1,244.2 GFLOPS. The MX230 lists FP16 at 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64); the K4000 has no FP16 data. TDP is 10 W versus 80 W. The MX230 is IGP with no power connectors; the K4000 is single-slot with 1x 6-pin and a 250 W suggested PSU. Bus interfaces are PCIe 3.0 x4 versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device dependent versus 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The K4000 has dimensions of 241 mm x 111 mm; the MX230 has none listed. The K4000 has a launch MSRP of 1,269 USD; the MX230 has none.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4000 wins in raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 6816 and Vulkan score of 6964 both exceed the MX230’s 5739 and 6414, respectively. For applications that leverage FP32 throughput—such as scientific simulations, rendering, or compute offload—the K4000’s 1,244.2 GFLOPS and 134.8 GB/s bandwidth provide a decisive edge. Its 3 GB memory capacity and 192-bit bus make it better suited for larger datasets that exceed the MX230’s 2 GB frame buffer. The K4000 also offers more display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort), which suits multi-monitor workstation setups.

The MX230 wins on efficiency and integration. Its 10 W TDP allows it to operate in systems without dedicated cooling or power connectors, making it ideal for ultraportable notebooks. Its 14 nm process and 24.3M/mm² density represent a generational leap in manufacturing efficiency. The MX230’s higher pixel rate (24.50 GPixel/s) suggests it could excel in pixel-bound tasks like simple 2D rendering or basic display output, though no benchmark confirms this. Its newer API support—Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1)—offers better forward compatibility with modern software stacks. The MX230’s average benchmark score of 6077, while not beating the K4000 in head-to-head tests, does exceed the K4000’s average of 5982, indicating more consistent performance across its supported test suite. Ultimately, the K4000 is the compute champion, while the MX230 is the efficiency leader—the choice depends entirely on whether raw throughput or power economy matters more.