NVIDIA GeForce MX230 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 and NVIDIA Quadro P2000 are both Pascal-based GPUs, but they occupy opposite ends of the mobile and desktop spectrum. The benchmark data is unequivocal: the Quadro P2000 wins both head-to-head tests by a massive margin, making it the superior choice for any compute-heavy workload. The MX230, while vastly less powerful, serves a specific niche as a low-power IGP for basic acceleration. The data shows a 71.5% deficit for the MX230 in OpenCL and a 72.8% deficit in Vulkan, confirming that these are not competing products but rather different tools for different tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2000 is the clear winner in every measurable benchmark category. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 20,125 against the MX230’s 5,739, a difference of 14,386 points. This translates to the P2000 being roughly 3.5 times faster in raw compute throughput. The Vulkan test tells a similar story: the P2000’s 23,566 dwarfs the MX230’s 6,414. Given these results, the P2000 is the only choice for applications that rely on GPU acceleration, such as 3D rendering, video editing, or scientific simulations.

The MX230’s only “win” is in power efficiency and physical footprint, though these are not reflected in the benchmark scores. With a 10 W TDP versus the P2000’s 75 W, the MX230 is designed for ultra-portable laptops where battery life and heat are paramount. Its IGP slot width and lack of power connectors mean it can be integrated into thin-and-light designs without dedicated cooling. However, this advantage comes at the cost of performance; the data shows the MX230 cannot compete in any compute scenario. There are no benchmark wins for the MX230 in the head-to-head data, so its role is strictly limited to basic display output and light 2D tasks.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the Pascal architecture, but they are built on different processes and use vastly different chips. The MX230 is based on the GP108 chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung, with 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. In contrast, the Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip, built on a 16 nm process at TSMC, packing 4,400 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die. The P2000’s larger die and higher transistor count are the primary reasons for its superior performance.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. This 4x difference in shading units and TMUs directly explains the massive gap in FP32 performance: 783.9 GFLOPS for the MX230 versus 3.031 TFLOPS for the P2000. The P2000 also offers significantly higher pixel and texture rates, at 59.20 GPixel/s and 94.72 GTexel/s, respectively, compared to the MX230’s 24.50 GPixel/s and 24.50 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations are also poles apart. The MX230 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, providing 140.2 GB/s. The P2000’s higher memory clock (1752 MHz vs 1502 MHz) and wider bus make it far more capable of handling large textures and datasets. Both support the same API set (DirectX 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), but the P2000’s hardware resources allow it to actually use these APIs effectively.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is significantly faster, scoring 20,125 compared to the GeForce MX230’s 5,739. This represents a 71.5% lead for the P2000.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both the MX230 and the P2000 support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. However, the P2000’s superior hardware allows it to achieve much higher scores in Vulkan (23,566 vs 6,414).

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P2000 offers 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GeForce MX230 provides only 48.06 GB/s. This is due to the P2000’s wider 160-bit bus and faster 7 Gbps effective memory speed.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The MX230 has a higher transistor density at 24.3M / mm², despite having fewer total transistors (1,800 million vs 4,400 million). This is because it uses a more advanced 14 nm process compared to the P2000’s 16 nm process.

Q: Is the Quadro P2000 a single-slot card?

A: Yes, the P2000 is a single-slot card with a length of 196 mm (7.7 inches) and a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches). The MX230 is an IGP with no physical dimensions listed, as it is integrated onto a motherboard.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The MX230 has a TDP of 10 W, making it suitable for fanless or low-power designs. The Quadro P2000 has a TDP of 75 W, requiring active cooling and a suggested power supply of 250 W.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification. The process node is different (14 nm for MX230 vs 16 nm for P2000), as is the foundry (Samsung vs TSMC). The transistor count is 1,800 million versus 4,400 million, and the die size is 74 mm² versus 200 mm². The MX230 has a higher base clock (1519 MHz vs 1076 MHz) but a slightly lower boost clock (1531 MHz vs 1480 MHz), yet the P2000’s massive core count overcomes this.

Memory is a major differentiator: 2 GB vs 5 GB, 64-bit vs 160-bit bus, 48.06 GB/s vs 140.2 GB/s bandwidth, and 1502 MHz vs 1752 MHz memory clock. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. Pixel rate is 24.50 GPixel/s vs 59.20 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 24.50 GTexel/s vs 94.72 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 783.9 GFLOPS vs 3.031 TFLOPS.

The MX230 is an IGP with no power connectors and a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the P2000 is a single-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. Display outputs differ: the MX230 is “Portable Device Dependent” while the P2000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The P2000 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, a length of 196 mm, and a height of 111 mm, none of which are specified for the MX230. Finally, the P2000 has a predecessor (Quadro Maxwell) and successor (Quadro Volta), while the MX230 has neither.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a complete dominance by the Quadro P2000. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P2000 scores 20,125 versus the MX230’s 5,739, a delta of -71.5% for the MX230. This is a colossal gap, indicating that the P2000 is roughly 3.5x faster in general-purpose compute. For Vulkan, the P2000 scores 23,566 against 6,414, a delta of -72.8%. The P2000’s lead is consistent across both tests, suggesting that its architectural advantages (more cores, wider memory bus) translate directly into real-world performance gains.

The MX230’s higher base clock (1519 MHz vs 1076 MHz) does not compensate for its 4x fewer shading units. While the MX230 has a higher transistor density (24.3M / mm² vs 22.0M / mm²), this is a function of the smaller die and does not translate into performance. The P2000’s 140.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is nearly 3x the MX230’s 48.06 GB/s, which is critical for bandwidth-sensitive workloads. These benchmark results are the definitive evidence: the P2000 is in a different performance class entirely.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the superior GPU for any task that requires compute performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by over 70%, and its specification sheet shows overwhelming advantages in core count, memory bandwidth, and fill rates. The P2000 is the only choice for professionals running CAD, 3D modeling, or GPU-accelerated rendering, as its 5 GB of VRAM and 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are necessary for such workloads. Its 75 W TDP and single-slot design make it suitable for desktop workstations with adequate cooling.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230, on the other hand, is not a competitor to the P2000. It is a low-power IGP with a 10 W TDP, designed for basic laptop use such as video playback, light photo editing, and casual gaming. Its 2 GB of VRAM and 783.9 GFLOPS are sufficient for these tasks but nothing more. The MX230’s only advantages are its power efficiency and compact form factor, which are irrelevant for desktop users. For anyone considering these two GPUs, the choice is straightforward: if you need performance, pick the P2000; if you need a low-power integrated solution, the MX230 serves that niche, but it will not handle demanding workloads.