NVIDIA GeForce MX230 vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M, with each card taking one of the two benchmark tests. The most decisive result comes from the GeForce Vulkan test, where the MX230 scores 6414 against the Quadro M500M’s 5222. That is a 22.8% advantage, a substantial margin that indicates the newer Pascal-based chip has a clear edge in this modern graphics API workload. For users or applications relying on Vulkan, this is a meaningful performance gap.

The OpenCL test tells a different story. Here, the Quadro M500M scores 5986, while the MX230 posts 5739. The delta is only 4.1% in favor of the Quadro, a much slimmer lead. While the Quadro does win this round, the margin is far from commanding. The MX230 remains competitive in OpenCL, trailing by less than half the margin it leads by in Vulkan. This suggests that the two products have different optimization profiles, with the Quadro performing slightly better in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads and the MX230 pulling ahead in Vulkan-based rendering scenarios.

Looking at the broader database context, the MX230’s average benchmark score is 6077, which places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro M500M’s average is 5604, placing it in the 32nd percentile. The MX230’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078 (0.0% delta), the Quadro P2000 at 6049 (0.5% delta), and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019 (1.0% delta). The Quadro M500M’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537 (1.2% delta) and the GeForce MX130 at 5508 (1.7% delta). These numbers indicate that while the MX230 sits slightly higher in the overall distribution, both chips occupy a similar low-to-mid tier.

The Vulkan result is worth emphasizing because it is the larger absolute gap in the head-to-head data. A 22.8% lead in Vulkan means the MX230 is not just faster, it is decisively faster in that test. The OpenCL result, by contrast, is only 4.1% behind, which is within a range that could be attributed to driver differences or workload-specific behavior. When averaging the two tests, the MX230 comes out ahead: its average benchmark score is 6077, versus 5604 for the Quadro. The MX230’s average is 8.4% higher, which aligns with the Vulkan dominance outweighing the OpenCL deficit.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is the better overall performer. It wins the Vulkan benchmark by a wide margin, 22.8%, and loses the OpenCL test by only 4.1%. The net effect is a higher average score: 6077 versus 5604. If the decision is based purely on benchmark results, the MX230 has the advantage.

The Quadro M500M is not without merit. Its OpenCL score of 5986 is the single highest test score between the two products. For workloads that are heavily OpenCL-dependent, the Quadro holds a slight edge. However, that edge is narrow, and it does not compensate for the large Vulkan deficit. The Quadro’s 32nd percentile ranking versus the MX230’s 35th percentile confirms that the MX230 sits slightly higher in the overall GPU population.

The MX230 also comes from a later release period, which aligns with its architectural advantages. The Quadro M500M was released earlier and has been succeeded by a newer Pascal generation, while the MX230 is end-of-life as well, but its Pascal architecture is newer. For any user who values modern API support and higher peak performance, the MX230 is the clear pick. For a user with a fixed OpenCL workload, the Quadro’s 4.1% lead might be relevant, but that is the only scenario where the Quadro makes sense.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different architectures. The MX230 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP108 chip, while the Quadro M500M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip. This generation gap has direct implications for feature support and power efficiency. The MX230 is built on a 14 nm process at Samsung, whereas the Quadro M500M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The smaller process node allows the MX230 to pack 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die size, compared to the Quadro’s 1,020 million transistors on a larger 77 mm² die. Transistor density per square millimeter is 24.3 million for the MX230 against 13.2 million for the Quadro, showing the architectural density advantage.

The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro M500M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, but only 8 ROPs. The Quadro has more shading units, but the MX230 has twice the ROP count. Pixel rate reflects that: the MX230 delivers 24.50 GPixel/s, while the Quadro delivers 8.992 GPixel/s. Texture rate is also higher on the MX230 at 24.50 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is similar, with the MX230 at 783.9 GFLOPS and the Quadro at 863.2 GFLOPS, the Quadro edging ahead due to its higher core count.

Memory is another major difference. The MX230 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M500M also has 2 GB, but it uses DDR3 memory, also on a 64-bit bus, which yields only 14.40 GB/s. That is a 3.3x difference in memory bandwidth, which heavily favors the MX230 for texture-heavy or bandwidth-sensitive tasks. The MX230’s memory clock is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the Quadro’s is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The MX230 also has a dedicated FP16 rate of 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64), while the Quadro has no listed FP16 performance. The MX230’s TDP is 10 W, versus 30 W for the Quadro, making the MX230 a more power-efficient part. The MX230 is packaged as an IGP, while the Quadro is an MXM module.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The MX230 has an average benchmark score of 6077, which is higher than the Quadro M500M’s 5604.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance difference?

The MX230 scores 6414 in the Vulkan benchmark, while the Quadro scores 5222. The MX230 is 22.8% ahead.

Q: Does the Quadro win any benchmark?

Yes, the Quadro wins the OpenCL test with a score of 5986, besting the MX230’s 5739 by 4.1%.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The MX230 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with a bandwidth of 48.06 GB/s, while the Quadro uses 2 GB of DDR3 with a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro M500M has 384 shading units, while the MX230 has 256 shading units.

Q: How does the power draw compare?

A: The MX230 has a TDP of 10 W, while the Quadro M500M has a TDP of 30 W.

Where Each One Wins

The MX230 wins in any scenario that relies on Vulkan or memory bandwidth. Its 22.8% Vulkan advantage makes it the better pick for modern game engines or compute workloads that execute via Vulkan. Its 48.06 GB/s bandwidth is substantially higher than the Quadro’s 14.40 GB/s, which should benefit texture streaming, high-resolution assets, or any data-heavy shader work. The MX230 also comes with a higher pixel rate and texture rate, making it stronger per-clock for fill-rate-bound tasks. Its lower 10 W power draw is an advantage for thin-and-light laptops where cooling is limited.

The Quadro M500M wins in OpenCL-specific environments, where its 4.1% lead could be relevant for professional compute tasks that are locked to OpenCL. Its 384 shading units give it more raw FP32 compute (863.2 GFLOPS), which helps in general-purpose GPU computing. The Quadro also has a higher base and boost clock of 1029 MHz and 1124 MHz, but the MX230’s boost clock is higher at 1531 MHz. The Quadro’s edge is narrow, though. It is also the older design, and its 30 W TDP is a drawback. In practice, the MX230 is the better all-rounder for modern workloads, while the Quadro is a niche pick for OpenCL-specific legacy applications.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

| Specification | MX230 | Quadro M500M |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell |

| Chip | GP108 | GM108S |

| Generation | GeForce MX (2xx) | Quadro Maxwell-M |

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

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 1,020 million |

| Die size | 74 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor density | 24.3M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1519 MHz | 1029 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1531 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps) |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading units | 256 | 384 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel rate | 24.50 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 24.50 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 783.9 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64) | null |

| TDP | 10 W | 30 W |

| Slot width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| DirectX support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Release date | 2019-02-20 | 2016-04-26 |

| Predecessor | null | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Successor | null | Quadro Pascal-M |

| Benchmarks | OpenCL: 5739, Vulkan: 6414 | OpenCL: 5986, Vulkan: 5222 |

| Percentile | 35th | 32nd |

Both share a 2 GB memory size, a 64-bit memory bus, 16 TMUs, no RT or tensor cores, no power connectors, and display outputs that are portable-device-dependent. The MX230 has no launch MSRP, and the Quadro also has no launch MSRP. The MX230 is made by NVIDIA, as is the Quadro. The MX230 is based on Pascal, a newer architecture than Maxwell. The MX230 also has a higher transistor density and a much newer release date. The Quadro has a larger die, more shading units, and a higher FP32 peak, but it loses on memory bandwidth, pixel fill, and power efficiency.