NVIDIA GeForce MX230 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits the two contenders cleanly down API lines. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K620 posts a score of 6693, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 manages 5739. That is a 16.6% advantage for the Quadro, a decisive margin that places it clearly ahead in this compute-oriented workload. The K620’s nearest rivals on aggregate score include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER at 6270 (0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 at 6330 (-0.8% delta), which underscores that its OpenCL win is not a fluke but rather consistent with a GPU punching near its weight class.

The MX230 strikes back in the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 6414 against the K620’s 5870. That is an 8.5% swing in the opposite direction, giving the MX230 the second head-to-head victory. This result aligns with the MX230’s newer architecture generation and its higher boost clock, which likely translates to better API-level efficiency in Vulkan’s modern pipeline. The MX230’s aggregate nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078 (0% delta) and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019 (1% delta), suggesting that its Vulkan strength helps it hold its own against much newer parts.

With one win apiece, the head-to-head record is tied at 1-1. The overall average benchmark score tells a similar story: the K620 averages 6282, while the MX230 averages 6077, a difference of roughly 3.4%. Both GPUs sit within a hair of the 36th and 35th percentile of all GPUs, respectively, meaning neither is a performance outlier. The K620’s lead in OpenCL is substantial, but the MX230’s Vulkan advantage is equally real. For a buyer prioritizing raw compute in legacy APIs, the K620 is the stronger pick; for Vulkan-centric workloads, the MX230 is clearly superior.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 wins decisively, scoring 6693 against the MX230’s 5739. That is a 16.6% higher score.

Q: Which GPU wins the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 wins, scoring 6414 versus the K620’s 5870. The MX230’s advantage here is 8.5%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall average score?

A: The Quadro K620 averages 6282 across benchmarks, while the MX230 averages 6077. The K620 leads by roughly 205 points, or about 3.4%.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU in aggregate performance?

A: For the K620, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M350 at 6327 (-0.7% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 at 6330 (-0.8% delta). For the MX230, the NVIDIA RTX A400 is an exact match at 6078 (0% delta), with the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 close behind at 6049 (0.5% delta).

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K620 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The MX230 wins here with 48.06 GB/s, compared to the K620’s 28.80 GB/s. This is driven by the MX230’s GDDR5 memory versus the K620’s DDR3, despite the K620’s wider 128-bit bus.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between the two GPUs is substantial, reflecting their different release periods. The Quadro K620 is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The GeForce MX230, in contrast, uses the Pascal architecture with the GP108 chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. Its 1,800 million transistors are squeezed into a much smaller 74 mm² die, achieving a density of 24.3 million per square millimeter — nearly double that of the K620.

The shading resources differ significantly. The K620 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The MX230 has fewer shading units (256) and TMUs (16), but matches the K620 with 16 ROPs. This means the K620 carries a 50% advantage in shader count, but the MX230’s higher clock speeds partially compensate in certain workloads. The pixel rate favors the MX230 at 24.50 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s for the K620, while the texture rate is nearly identical: 26.98 GTexel/s for the K620 and 24.50 GTexel/s for the MX230.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The K620 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX230 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yet achieves a much higher 48.06 GB/s due to faster memory clocks — 6 Gbps effective versus 1800 Mbps effective for the K620. The MX230 also supports FP16 compute at 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a feature the K620 lacks entirely. API support differs as well: the MX230 hits DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K620 is capped at DirectX 12 (11_0).

Specification Differences

The specification tables reveal a clear generational split. The K620 runs at a base clock of 1058 MHz with a boost of 1124 MHz, while the MX230 starts at 1519 MHz and boosts to 1531 MHz — roughly 36% higher base and 36% higher boost. The K620’s memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), versus the MX230’s 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The K620’s FP32 throughput is 863.2 GFLOPS, slightly above the MX230’s 783.9 GFLOPS, despite the latter’s higher clock, due to the K620’s larger shader count.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The K620 has a TDP of 45 W, whereas the MX230 draws just 10 W. The K620 is a single-slot card, 160 mm long and 69 mm high, with display outputs of 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The MX230 is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no dedicated dimensions and its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating it is designed for laptops. The K620 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and suggests a 200 W PSU, while the MX230 uses PCIe 3.0 x4 and has no PSU recommendation. Neither GPU requires power connectors.

The release timeline places the K620 on 2014-07-21 and the MX230 on 2019-02-20, nearly five years apart. The K620’s generation is listed as "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" with a predecessor of Quadro Fermi and a successor of Quadro Maxwell. The MX230’s generation is "GeForce MX (2xx)" with no listed predecessor or successor. Both are end-of-life products. The K620’s process node is 28 nm versus the MX230’s 14 nm, and the foundries differ — TSMC for the K620, Samsung for the MX230.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward choice based on workload. For users running OpenCL-heavy applications, the NVIDIA Quadro K620 is the superior option, delivering a 16.6% higher score in that benchmark. Its higher FP32 throughput (863.2 GFLOPS versus 783.9 GFLOPS) and larger shader count (384 versus 256) make it the better compute engine for legacy APIs. The K620 also benefits from a wider 128-bit memory bus, though its DDR3 memory limits overall bandwidth compared to the MX230.

For Vulkan-based workloads, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is the clear winner, posting an 8.5% higher score. Its Pascal architecture, newer 14 nm process, and significantly lower 10 W TDP make it a far more efficient part. The MX230’s GDDR5 memory delivers 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth — 67% more than the K620 — despite a narrower 64-bit bus. It also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a feature level the K620 cannot match.

Form factor is a decisive differentiator. The K620 is a single-slot, 160 mm card requiring a 200 W PSU, suited for desktop workstations. The MX230 is an IGP with no dimensions, designed for portable devices. If the platform is a laptop, the MX230 is the only viable option. If the platform is a desktop with a PCIe 2.0 x16 slot, the K620 offers better OpenCL performance but consumes 35 W more power.

The aggregate scores are close — 6282 for the K620 versus 6077 for the MX230 — but the distribution matters more than the average. The K620’s nearest rivals include the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER at 6270 (0.2% delta), indicating it punches above its age in compute. The MX230’s nearest rival is the RTX A400 at 6078 (0% delta), a modern workstation part. Neither GPU is a performance leader, but each has a specific niche where it excels.

The verdict is simple: pick the Quadro K620 for legacy OpenCL compute in a desktop workstation, and pick the GeForce MX230 for Vulkan workloads in a portable device. The tied 1-1 head-to-head record reflects a genuine split in capabilities, not a dominant overall winner. The K620’s higher average score (6282) and higher percentile (36th) give it a marginal edge in aggregate, but the MX230’s lower power draw and modern API support make it the more future-proof choice for new applications.