GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data presents an unusually one-sided comparison. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the NVIDIA RTX A400 wins decisively in both, leaving the GeForce MX230 without a single victory. The most striking gap appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RTX A400 scores 22,844 against the MX230's 5,739. That is a 298% advantage, nearly four times the raw compute output. This is not a marginal lead; it is a generational chasm expressed in a single metric.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though with a slightly narrower margin. The RTX A400 posts 22,237, while the MX230 manages 6,414. The delta here is 246.7%, still a massive gap but revealing an interesting nuance: the MX230's Vulkan score is actually higher relative to its OpenCL result than the A400's is. In other words, the MX230 seems comparatively less weak under Vulkan than under OpenCL, even though it loses by a wide margin in both. This could hint at driver maturity or API-specific optimization differences, but the data does not dig deeper into why.

Looking at the broader context, the average benchmark scores are nearly identical, 6,078 for the RTX A400 and 6,077 for the MX230, which might suggest a close contest. That impression is misleading. The average is computed from different benchmark suites: the RTX A400 has nine results spanning DirectX 10, 11, 12, 9, 2D, 3D, and compute workloads, while the MX230 only has the two Geekbench entries. The head-to-head data, where both cards run the same tests, is the only fair comparison, and it is not close.

What makes the OpenCL result particularly telling is that it measures general-purpose GPU compute, not just graphics. The RTX A400's 298% lead in that workload suggests its architecture is far more capable at non-rendering tasks. The MX230's Pascal design, from 2019, simply cannot keep pace with the Ampere-based A400's execution resources. The Vulkan gap, while smaller, still indicates a fundamental throughput deficit.

One should note that the nearest-rival data places both cards at the 35th percentile among all GPUs. They are peers in the aggregate ranking, yet the head-to-head shows one dominating the other. This is a reminder that percentile rankings smooth over workload-specific extremes. The RTX A400 is a specialist that excels at compute-heavy tasks; the MX230 is a generalist that does not excel at much in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins with a score of 22,844 versus the MX230's 5,739, a 298% advantage.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the MX230 outperforms the RTX A400?

A: No. In the two shared tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, the RTX A400 wins both. The MX230 has zero wins in the head-to-head data.

Q: How do the cards compare in overall percentile ranking?

A: Both sit at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, indicating they are statistically similar in the aggregate database ranking.

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

A: The RTX A400 averages 6,078, while the MX230 averages 6,077, a difference of just 1 point. However, this average is based on different test suites and does not reflect the head-to-head results.

Q: Does the MX230 have any architectural features that might compensate for its lower scores?

A: The MX230 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, whereas the RTX A400 has 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. The data shows the A400's compute advantage in OpenCL, but the specific impact of RT/tensor cores on these benchmarks is not isolated.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient according to the data?

A: The MX230 has a 10 W TDP compared to the RTX A400's 50 W. This is a five-fold difference, but the A400 delivers roughly 3.5 to 4 times the performance in the head-to-head tests, so the efficiency trade-off is not straightforwardly in the MX230's favor.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two NVIDIA GPUs is vast, spanning process nodes, transistor counts, and feature sets. The RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, packing 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. The MX230 relies on the GP108 chip on a 14 nm process, with just 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. That is nearly five times more transistors on the A400, and the density difference shows: 43.5 million transistors per mm² versus 24.3 million. The A400 is not just bigger; it is denser by a factor of 1.8.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The RTX A400 ships with 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX230 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 64-bit bus, but only 48.06 GB/s. Doubling the memory capacity and bandwidth is a substantive upgrade, one that directly impacts texture-heavy workloads and larger datasets. The memory clock also differs: 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) on the A400 versus 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on the MX230. The effective rate is doubled on the A400.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The A400 has 768 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The A400's shading unit count is triple the MX230's, which explains its massive FP32 throughput of 2.706 TFLOPS versus 783.9 GFLOPS. The FP16 gap is even more extreme: the A400 achieves 2.706 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the MX230 manages only 12.25 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. That is a 221x difference in half-precision compute, though such workloads are rare in the tested benchmarks.

Feature-level differences are stark. The RTX A400 includes 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores, both absent from the MX230. The A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the MX230 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the A400's DX12 Ultimate designation indicates it can handle ray tracing and mesh shaders at the API level, something the MX230 cannot claim.

The bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 on the A400 versus PCIe 3.0 x4 on the MX230. This affects CPU-to-GPU data transfer rates, which can matter in games or compute tasks that stream geometry. The A400's interface offers more lanes and a newer standard, though the practical impact depends on workload. The display outputs reflect their intended uses: the A400 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, while the MX230's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they are wired into laptop designs.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the superior performer in every shared benchmark, and the gaps are enormous. If the question is pure compute or graphics performance, the A400 wins without qualification. The OpenCL score alone, 298% higher, settles any debate about raw throughput. The Vulkan result reinforces this, with a 246.7% lead. There is no scenario in the provided data where the MX230 comes out ahead.

However, the verdict is not solely about performance. The MX230 is a 10 W integrated-mobile part, designed for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals are paramount. The A400 is a 50 W single-slot workstation card that requires a 250 W power supply recommendation. The MX230 has no power supply suggestion because it is an IGP, it draws from the laptop's existing power budget. The A400 needs a dedicated slot and power delivery. If the use case is a compact, low-power notebook, the MX230's 10 W TDP is a feature, not a flaw.

But the A400's production status is "Active," while the MX230 is "End-of-life." The A400 was released in April 2024, the MX230 in February 2019. The A400 is the current product; the MX230 is legacy. For anyone buying new hardware today, the A400 is the only sensible choice per the data. The MX230's lower power draw does not compensate for a 298% performance deficit in compute and a 246.7% deficit in Vulkan.

The percentile ranking (both at 35) might tempt one to call them equal, but that ranking is an artifact of different test suites. The head-to-head is the only apples-to-apples comparison, and it is not close. The RTX A400 is the pick for anyone who needs performance. The MX230 is only relevant if the absolute lowest power envelope is non-negotiable, and even then, its age and end-of-life status make it a risky choice.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A400 | NVIDIA GeForce MX230 |

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

| Chip | GA107 | GP108 |

| Architecture | Ampere | Pascal |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 1,800 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 74 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1417 MHz | 1519 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1762 MHz | 1531 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 48.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 256 |

| TMUs | 24 | 16 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 6 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 24 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 2.706 TFLOPS | 783.9 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) | 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 50 W | 10 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

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

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 wins in every performance category measured. In OpenCL compute, it is 298% faster. In Vulkan graphics, it is 246.7% faster. Its FP32 throughput is 3.45 times higher (2.706 TFLOPS versus 783.9 GFLOPS). Memory bandwidth is doubled at 96.00 GB/s versus 48.06 GB/s. It has triple the shading units (768 versus 256) and six times the transistors (8,700 million versus 1,800 million). It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, has ray tracing and tensor cores, and uses a newer PCIe 4.0 interface. For any task that stresses the GPU, 3D rendering, compute, machine learning inference, or high-resolution texturing, the A400 is the clear winner.

The MX230's only wins are in efficiency-related metrics. Its TDP is 10 W versus the A400's 50 W, a five-fold reduction. It needs no power connector and no dedicated slot, being an IGP. Its base clock is slightly higher (1519 MHz versus 1417 MHz), and its memory clock is marginally faster in raw MHz (1502 MHz versus 1500 MHz), though the A400's effective rate is double. The MX230 is also smaller in die size (74 mm² versus 200 mm²) and uses fewer transistors, which historically implies lower cost, though pricing is not in the data.

In practical terms, the MX230 suits a laptop where battery life and heat output are the primary constraints, and where the GPU is an afterthought for light 2D work or video playback. The A400 suits a workstation where the GPU is a tool for professional workloads, CAD, content creation, or compute, and where power draw is a secondary concern. The data does not support any use case where the MX230 outperforms the A400 in speed, but it does support a niche for the MX230 in ultra-low-power mobile devices. That niche, however, is shrinking as the MX230 reaches end-of-life and the A400 continues as an active product.