NVIDIA GeForce MX230 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains two direct head-to-head comparisons between the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000, and the results are lopsided. The Quadro M4000 wins both tests by a wide margin, with no benchmark victories for the MX230 in the database. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the MX230 scores 5,739 points, while the Quadro M4000 reaches 19,118 points. That translates to a delta of negative 70%, meaning the Quadro M4000 is roughly 233% faster in raw compute throughput. The Vulkan test tells a similar story: the MX230 posts 6,414 points, while the Quadro M4000 delivers 24,640 points, a negative 74% delta, or about 284% higher performance. These are not close contests; the Quadro M4000 dominates in every measured workload.

The scale of the gap suggests fundamental differences in design intent. The MX230 is positioned as a mobile, low-power part, and its scores reflect that. The Quadro M4000, by contrast, is a workstation-class board with far more resources devoted to parallel processing. When looking at the average benchmark scores, the MX230 lands at 6,077, while the Quadro M4000 sits at 5,467. This average is pulled down for the Quadro M4000 because the database includes several older DirectX and Passmark tests where it scores modestly, such as 33 in Passmark DirectX 10 and 26 in Passmark DirectX 12. These legacy tests do not reflect the Quadro M4000's strength in modern compute APIs. The head-to-head data, which uses only Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, is the more reliable indicator of real-world capability.

The percentile rankings reinforce the divide. The MX230 sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile. Despite the Quadro M4000's massive win in the head-to-head tests, its overall percentile is slightly lower because the aggregate includes those older, less flattering benchmarks. This is a case where the average score can mislead; the focused head-to-head results show a clear hierarchy. The MX230's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6,078 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6,049 (0.5% delta), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6,117 (negative 0.7% delta), and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6,019 (1% delta). The Quadro M4000's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5,483 (negative 0.3% delta), the AMD Radeon 610M at 5,444 (0.4% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5,501 (negative 0.6% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5,508 (negative 0.7% delta). In both cases, the deltas are small, meaning the MX230 and Quadro M4000 are each tightly clustered with their respective peers, but the two clusters are far apart in absolute terms.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is stark, beginning with the manufacturing process. The MX230 uses a 14 nm process at Samsung, while the Quadro M4000 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The MX230 is built on the Pascal architecture with the GP108 chip, while the Quadro M4000 uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip. The transistor counts reflect the scale difference: the MX230 packs 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.3 million per mm². The Quadro M4000 contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, but its density is only 13.1 million per mm². The newer process node allows the MX230 to pack more transistors into a smaller area, but the Quadro M4000's sheer physical size gives it far more raw resources.

The compute units tell the performance story. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is 6.5 times more shaders, 6.5 times more TMUs, and 4 times more ROPs. The pixel rate for the MX230 is 24.50 GPixel/s, while the Quadro M4000 reaches 49.47 GPixel/s. The texture rate is similarly divergent: 24.50 GTexel/s for the MX230 versus 80.39 GTexel/s for the Quadro M4000. FP32 compute is listed at 783.9 GFLOPS for the MX230 and 2.573 TFLOPS for the Quadro M4000, meaning the Quadro M4000 has roughly 3.3 times the single-precision floating-point throughput. The MX230 does have a listed FP16 figure of 12.25 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the Quadro M4000 has no FP16 data recorded, which is typical for a Maxwell 2.0 part focused on FP32.

Memory configuration is another major divider. The MX230 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s. That is four times the memory capacity and four times the memory bandwidth. The memory clock is effectively identical at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective transfer rate, but the bus width difference is decisive. The MX230's power draw is listed at 10 W, while the Quadro M4000 consumes 120 W, a 12-fold increase. The MX230 requires no power connectors and is listed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with portable device dependent display outputs. The Quadro M4000 is a single-slot card with 1x 6-pin power connector, a suggested PSU of 300 W, and four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The bus interface also differs: the MX230 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the Quadro M4000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The MX230 wins in efficiency and portability. Its 10 W TDP means it can operate without auxiliary power, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where thermal and power budgets are tight. The 14 nm process and smaller die size (74 mm² versus 398 mm²) contribute to this low power envelope. The MX230 also has a higher transistor density, at 24.3 million per mm², indicating a more modern manufacturing approach. In terms of raw performance per watt, the MX230 delivers 783.9 GFLOPS at 10 W, or roughly 78.4 GFLOPS per watt, while the Quadro M4000 delivers 2,573 GFLOPS at 120 W, or about 21.4 GFLOPS per watt. The MX230 is over three times more efficient in this metric, though it cannot match the absolute throughput.

The Quadro M4000 wins in every head-to-head benchmark, and its advantages extend to workloads that demand large memory pools and high bandwidth. The 8 GB VRAM and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for rendering large scenes, high-resolution textures, or compute tasks that require frequent data movement. The 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs support multi-monitor professional setups, which the MX230 cannot match due to its portable device dependent outputs. The Quadro M4000's 1,664 shading units and 104 TMUs give it a clear edge in geometry-heavy tasks and complex shader workloads. The FP32 throughput of 2.573 TFLOPS positions it for scientific computing, CAD, and video processing, whereas the MX230's 783.9 GFLOPS is more aligned with basic display output and light media acceleration.

The benchmark data suggests a workload split. For embedded or mobile scenarios where space and power are constrained, the MX230 is the only viable option; its IGP form factor and lack of power connectors mean it cannot be used in a desktop workstation. For any task that involves actual 3D rendering, compute, or professional visualization, the Quadro M4000's scores in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan (19,118 and 24,640 respectively) dwarf the MX230's scores (5,739 and 6,414). The Quadro M4000 also has a broader benchmark suite in the database, including Passmark tests where it records 6,680 in G3D and 2,660 in GPU compute, though those tests are not directly comparable to the MX230's results.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the superior performer in absolute terms, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is the superior choice for low-power, portable applications. The Quadro M4000 wins both head-to-head tests by deltas of negative 70% and negative 74%, indicating a performance gap of roughly three to four times in the measured workloads. Its 8 GB memory, 256-bit bus, and 1,664 shading units provide the resources needed for demanding professional tasks. The MX230, with its 10 W TDP, 2 GB memory, and 256 shading units, is not designed to compete in those arenas; it is designed to provide basic graphics capability in a mobile form factor.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision is dictated by the use case. If the requirement is a laptop with minimal power draw and no need for discrete performance beyond everyday tasks, the MX230 is the appropriate part. If the requirement is a desktop workstation with a single-slot card that can handle compute and rendering workloads, the Quadro M4000 is the only logical choice. The MX230's percentile rank of 35 is slightly higher than the Quadro M4000's 32, but this is an artifact of the benchmark selection; the head-to-head data is unambiguous. The Quadro M4000 is also older, released in 2015, while the MX230 came in 2019, but age does not compensate for the massive architectural advantage held by the Quadro M4000. Both are end-of-life products, so availability is the primary practical concern, but performance-wise, the Quadro M4000 dominates.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in the head-to-head tests?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 19,118 versus 5,739 for the MX230, a negative 70% delta. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 24,640 versus 6,414, a negative 74% delta.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The MX230 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. Both run at an effective 6 Gbps memory speed.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MX230 has a TDP of 10 W and no power connectors. The Quadro M4000 has a TDP of 120 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The MX230 has a transistor density of 24.3 million per mm² on a 14 nm process, while the Quadro M4000 has 13.1 million per mm² on a 28 nm process. The MX230 packs 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, while the Quadro M4000 packs 5,200 million on a 398 mm² die.

Q: Are there any benchmark categories where the MX230 wins?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the MX230 and two wins for the Quadro M4000 in head-to-head tests. The MX230's only advantage is efficiency and form factor, not performance.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The MX230 has an average benchmark score of 6,077, while the Quadro M4000 has an average of 5,467. However, the Quadro M4000's average is lowered by older Passmark tests, and its head-to-head scores are significantly higher.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX230 | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Chip | GP108 | GM204 |

| Process Node | 14 nm (Samsung) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.3M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1519 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1531 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 1,664 |

| TMUs | 16 | 104 |

| ROPs | 16 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 24.50 GPixel/s | 49.47 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.50 GTexel/s | 80.39 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 783.9 GFLOPS | 2.573 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64) | Not specified |

| TDP | 10 W | 120 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Length | Not specified | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | Not specified | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2019-02-20 | 2015-06-28 |

| Predecessor | Not specified | Quadro Kepler |

| Successor | Not specified | Quadro Pascal |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |