NVIDIA GeForce MX230 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data tells a lopsided story. In the only two benchmark tests where both GPUs are measured head-to-head, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M5000M scores 22,920 against the MX230's 5,739 — a 299.4% advantage. That is not a marginal lead; it is a four-fold performance gap. The Geekbench Vulkan result follows the same pattern: the M5000M posts 24,875, while the MX230 manages 6,414, a 287.8% difference.

These deltas are staggering, but context matters. The M5000M carries an average benchmark score of 6,481 across all its tested workloads, placing it in the 37th percentile of all GPUs. The MX230's average is 6,077, which lands it in the 35th percentile. In other words, despite the massive OpenCL and Vulkan gaps, the two cards sit nearly adjacent in overall GPU rankings. The reason: the MX230's scores come from a much narrower benchmark set, and the M5000M's average is dragged down by weak DirectX results — it scores only 35 in Passmark DirectX 10, 54 in DirectX 11, and 29 in DirectX 12. The MX230 has no comparable DirectX scores in the data, so its average is built only from its two stronger OpenCL and Vulkan showings.

Look closer at the M5000M's benchmark profile, and a pattern emerges. Its Passmark G3D score is 7,062, its G2D is 476, and its GPU compute is 2,756. The DirectX 9 score of 119 is the outlier on the high end, while DirectX 12 at 29 is the weakest. This suggests the M5000M's architecture excels at compute-heavy tasks but struggles in modern API gaming workloads — a trait consistent with its professional Quadro lineage. The MX230, by contrast, has no DirectX numbers at all in the pack, so its gaming potential remains unquantified here.

The nearest rival data adds another layer. The M5000M's closest competitor by average score is the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile at 6,476, a 0.1% delta. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M follows at 6,493 (-0.2%), then the GTX 670M at 6,513 (-0.5%). The M5000M essentially trades blows with decade-old mobile GPUs in aggregate performance. The MX230's rivals tell a different story: the NVIDIA RTX A400 matches it exactly at 6,078 (0% delta), the Quadro P2000 trails by 0.5%, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is 0.7% behind. The MX230 is competitive with professional Pascal-era cards, which is notable for a chip with a 10W TDP.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural eras and design philosophies. The Quadro M5000M is built on Maxwell 2.0, a 28 nm TSMC design with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die — a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The GeForce MX230 uses Pascal, fabricated on Samsung's 14 nm process, packing 1,800 million transistors into just 74 mm², yielding a density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. That is nearly double the density, a generational leap in manufacturing efficiency.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The M5000M fields 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Clock speeds invert the raw core count advantage: the MX230 runs at 1,519 MHz base and 1,531 MHz boost, while the M5000M sits at 962 MHz base and 1,051 MHz boost. The MX230's higher clocks partially compensate for fewer cores, but not nearly enough.

Memory is another chasm. The M5000M carries 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX230 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, with 48.06 GB/s. Memory clocks also differ: 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on the M5000M versus 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on the MX230. The M5000M's wider bus is the dominant factor.

Compute throughput tells the performance story. The M5000M achieves 3.229 TFLOPS of FP32, 67.26 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 100.9 GTexel/s texture rate. The MX230 delivers 783.9 GFLOPS FP32, 24.50 GPixel/s, and 24.50 GTexel/s. The M5000M is roughly 4x faster in raw FP32 — consistent with the OpenCL delta. The MX230 does list FP16 at 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the M5000M has no FP16 figure, a hint that the Pascal chip has some compute flexibility the older Maxwell part lacks.

Power and form factor differ fundamentally. The M5000M is a 100 W MXM module, designed for mobile workstations. The MX230 is a 10 W IGP (integrated graphics processor) on PCIe 3.0 x4, meant for thin-and-light laptops. That 10x TDP gap explains the performance divide — and also the thermal envelope differences. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical.

# Where Each One Wins

The M5000M wins every benchmark where both are tested. Its 299.4% OpenCL lead and 287.8% Vulkan lead are absolute. For compute-heavy professional workloads — think OpenCL-accelerated rendering, simulation, or data processing — the M5000M is the clear choice. Its 8 GB VRAM and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth also position it for large datasets, though the pack does not include memory-specific tests.

The MX230's wins are more subtle. It has no head-to-head victories, but its architecture offers advantages the data implies rather than tests. Its 14 nm process and 10 W TDP mean it can fit in compact, fan-less or low-cooling designs where a 100 W MXM module would be impossible. The higher clock speeds (1,531 MHz boost) and smaller die suggest better efficiency per watt, even if total performance is lower. The MX230's PCIe 3.0 x4 interface is also more modern and flexible for integration into standard laptop motherboards.

In gaming, the picture is murky. The M5000M's DirectX scores are poor — 35 in DX10, 54 in DX11, 29 in DX12, but 119 in DX9. These are Passmark scores, and they indicate the M5000M is not optimized for modern gaming APIs. The MX230 has no DirectX scores, so its gaming capability is unknown from this data. What is clear: the M5000M's compute dominance does not translate to DirectX performance, suggesting driver or architectural priorities geared toward professional compute rather than rasterized gaming.

The average benchmark scores show the two are closer in aggregate than the head-to-head suggests. The M5000M's 6,481 average versus the MX230's 6,077 is only a 6.6% gap. This is because the M5000M's DirectX results drag its average down, while the MX230's limited benchmark set avoids those weak scores entirely. For a user running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads exclusively, the M5000M is vastly superior. For a user running DirectX-based applications, the M5000M's poor scores are a red flag, and the MX230's untested results leave room for speculation.

# FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Quadro M5000M in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The M5000M scores 22,920 versus the MX230's 5,739, a 299.4% advantage.

Q: Does the GeForce MX230 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The data shows 2 wins for the M5000M and 0 for the MX230 in the shared tests.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The M5000M averages 6,481, and the MX230 averages 6,077. The M5000M is about 6.6% higher in aggregate.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The M5000M has 160.4 GB/s from an 8 GB GDDR5 setup on a 256-bit bus. The MX230 has 48.06 GB/s from 2 GB GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Are the APIs supported identical?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The M5000M has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM module form factor. The MX230 has a 10 W TDP and is an IGP.

# The Verdict

The data points to two different tools. The Quadro M5000M is a compute powerhouse. Its OpenCL and Vulkan scores are roughly 3x those of the MX230, and its 8 GB VRAM, 256-bit bus, and 3.229 TFLOPS FP32 make it suited for professional workloads that demand raw throughput. Its 37th percentile ranking and weak DirectX scores, however, mean it is not a gaming card. The DirectX 12 score of 29 is particularly telling — modern games would likely run poorly.

The GeForce MX230 is an efficiency play. Its 10 W TDP, 14 nm process, and compact 74 mm² die make it ideal for ultraportable laptops. Its average benchmark score of 6,077 is only 6.6% below the M5000M, despite a 10x power draw difference. That efficiency is the MX230's real strength. It competes with the RTX A400 (0% delta) and Quadro P2000 (0.5% ahead), which are professional Pascal cards — a respectable showing for a low-power IGP.

Choose the M5000M if your workloads are OpenCL or Vulkan heavy and you need large memory capacity. Its 299.4% OpenCL lead leaves no ambiguity. Choose the MX230 if you need a low-power, modern-process GPU for a thin laptop, and your applications are not compute-intensive. The data does not support using the MX230 for serious compute — its sub-1 TFLOPS FP32 and 48.06 GB/s bandwidth are limiting — but as a general-purpose IGP, it holds its own in aggregate benchmarks. The M5000M is end-of-life, as is the MX230, so neither is a future-proof investment. The data favors the M5000M for performance, the MX230 for efficiency.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M5000M | NVIDIA GeForce MX230 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Pascal |

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

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

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 74 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 962 MHz | 1519 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1051 MHz | 1531 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB GDDR5 | 2 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 48.06 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 256 |

| TMUs | 96 | 16 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 67.26 GPixel/s | 24.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 100.9 GTexel/s | 24.50 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.229 TFLOPS | 783.9 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 100 W | 10 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Release Date | 2015-08-17 | 2019-02-20 |