GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000M represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, separated by nearly seven years of architectural evolution. The data shows a closer contest than the generational gap might suggest, though the two cards achieve their results through fundamentally different designs. The Quadro K4000M edges out the MX230 in the single available head-to-head benchmark, but the specifications tell a story of contrasting priorities: the MX230 is a low-power, highly efficient modern chip, while the K4000M is an older, power-hungry professional solution with a wider memory bus and more raw compute units.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark result between the two cards is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5,986 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 5,739 points. This represents a 4.1% advantage for the K4000M, a notable but not overwhelming margin. The delta of 247 points is enough to secure a win in this single benchmark, giving the K4000M a 1-0 record in the head-to-head comparison.

When placed in the broader context of the benchmark database, the two GPUs occupy nearly identical positions. The MX230 has an average benchmark score of 6,077, while the K4000M averages 5,986. The MX230's percentile ranking among all GPUs is 35, while the K4000M sits at 34. This means the performance difference between them is almost negligible in aggregate terms. The MX230's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A400 with an average score of 6,078 (a 0% difference), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6,049 (0.5% ahead of the MX230), and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6,117 (the MX230 trails by 0.7%). Meanwhile, the K4000M's closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W4100, which scores 6,087, a 0% difference, and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5,982, which is 0.1% slower.

The key takeaway from the benchmark data is that the K4000M's raw compute advantage, it has nearly four times the shading units, does not translate into a proportional performance lead in OpenCL workloads. The MX230's higher clock speeds and modern architecture compensate for its smaller hardware footprint. The 4.1% delta in the head-to-head test is well within the range of what benchmark variance and driver optimizations can produce, making the two cards effectively peers in this specific workload.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP108 chip manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process node. This process allows for a transistor count of 1,800 million packed into a die size of 74 mm². The result is a transistor density of 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter, a figure that reflects the efficiency of the modern manufacturing process.

In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M relies on the much older Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This older node yields a significantly larger die of 294 mm², containing 3,540 million transistors. The transistor density here is just 12.0 million per square millimeter, less than half that of the MX230. The K4000M's larger chip is a product of its era, prioritizing raw compute throughput over power efficiency.

The core configurations differ dramatically as well. The MX230 packs 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The K4000M, on the other hand, fields 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This gives the K4000M a theoretical FP32 peak of 1,153.9 GFLOPS, compared to the MX230's 783.9 GFLOPS. The K4000M also leads in texture fill rate at 48.08 GTexel/s versus the MX230's 24.50 GTexel/s, though the MX230 wins in pixel fill rate with 24.50 GPixel/s against the K4000M's 12.02 GPixel/s.

Clock speeds tell the other side of the story. The MX230 operates at a base clock of 1519 MHz with a boost clock of 1531 MHz, while the K4000M is locked at a static 601 MHz for both base and boost. This 2.5x clock advantage allows the MX230 to partially offset the K4000M's hardware superiority. The MX230 also supports FP16 computation at 12.25 GFLOPS, a feature entirely absent from the K4000M, which has no FP16 capability listed. In terms of API support, the MX230 offers DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and the older Vulkan 1.2.175, indicating newer driver and feature-level support on the MX230.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate that the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M holds a slight edge in OpenCL compute, making it the better choice for tasks that rely heavily on that specific API. Its 4.1% lead in the head-to-head test, combined with its higher FP32 throughput and larger memory capacity, suggests it can handle more complex computational loads without stuttering. The K4000M also offers double the memory bandwidth at 89.60 GB/s versus the MX230's 48.06 GB/s, which can be crucial for large datasets in professional applications.

However, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 wins decisively on efficiency and modern feature support. Its 10 W TDP is a fraction of the K4000M's 100 W TDP, making it suitable for ultra-thin laptops where power draw is critical. The MX230's Pascal architecture brings support for newer DirectX 12 (12_1) features and Vulkan 1.4, which can improve performance in modern games and applications that leverage these APIs. The MX230 also achieves a higher pixel fill rate, which can benefit certain rendering scenarios despite its lower overall compute power.

For users prioritizing battery life and portability, the MX230 is the clear winner. For those who need the highest possible compute throughput in a professional environment, the K4000M's raw power makes it marginally better in the tested workload. The MX230's average benchmark score of 6,077 is actually higher than the K4000M's 5,986, despite losing the head-to-head test, suggesting that the MX230 may perform better in other untested workloads or with different driver versions.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals several key differences between the two GPUs, with only a few overlapping fields. The most obvious divergence is in process node and die size: the MX230 uses a 14 nm process with a 74 mm² die, while the K4000M uses a 28 nm process with a 294 mm² die. The transistor counts follow suit, with the MX230 at 1,800 million and the K4000M at 3,540 million. The foundries differ as well, Samsung for the MX230 and TSMC for the K4000M.

Memory configurations are another major split. The MX230 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The K4000M doubles the capacity to 4 GB on a 256-bit bus, providing 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. Memory clock speeds also differ, with the MX230 running at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) and the K4000M at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). Clock speeds for the GPU cores are similarly divergent: the MX230 runs at 1519 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost, while the K4000M is fixed at 601 MHz.

The compute unit counts are vastly different, with the K4000M offering 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus the MX230's 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Power consumption is a major differentiator: the MX230 draws only 10 W and uses an IGP slot width, while the K4000M consumes 100 W and uses an MXM Module form factor. The bus interface also differs, with the MX230 using PCIe 3.0 x4 and the K4000M using MXM-B (3.0). Both cards rely on portable device dependent display outputs and have no power connectors listed. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The MX230 has no listed predecessor or successor, while the K4000M's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5,986 points, which is 4.1% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce MX230's 5,739 points.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores of these two GPUs compare?

A: The MX230 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 6,077, while the K4000M averages 5,986. This puts the MX230 at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, one point higher than the K4000M's 34th percentile.

Q: What are the key differences in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The K4000M offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX230 provides 2 GB on a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The MX230 has a TDP of 10 W, which is dramatically lower than the K4000M's 100 W TDP, making the MX230 far more suitable for power-constrained systems.

Q: Do these GPUs support different API versions?

A: Yes, the MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, giving the MX230 more modern API feature levels.

Q: What are the release dates of these two products?

A: The MX230 was released on February 20, 2019, while the K4000M is much older, with a release date of May 31, 2012. Both are now listed as end-of-life products.