NVIDIA GeForce MX230 vs NVIDIA T600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive, one-sided performance gap between the NVIDIA T600 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX230. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the T600 wins both, with margins that are nothing short of overwhelming.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the T600 scores 27,875, while the MX230 manages only 5,739. That places the T600 ahead by 385.7%. This is not a marginal lead; it is a multi-generational chasm in raw compute throughput. For context, the MX230's OpenCL score is closer to the T600's Vulkan score divided by four than it is to the T600's own OpenCL result.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a slightly smaller delta. The T600 scores 25,580, and the MX230 scores 6,414, giving the T600 a 298.8% advantage. The absolute numbers here are telling: the MX230's best result across both tests is 6,414, which is less than a quarter of the T600's worst result of 25,580.

Looking at the broader database averages, the T600 holds an average benchmark score of 7,035 across all recorded tests, while the MX230 averages 6,077. This places the T600 in the 39th percentile of all GPUs, and the MX230 in the 35th percentile. The T600's nearest rivals, based on average score, include the GeForce GTX 970 (7,157, 1.7% higher), the GeForce GTX 680M (7,023, 0.2% lower), and the Radeon R5 M240 (6,975, 0.9% lower). The MX230, meanwhile, sits near the RTX A400 (6,078, 0% delta) and the Quadro P2000 (6,049, 0.5% higher). This means the MX230 is competitive with entry-level workstation cards from a previous generation, but the T600 operates in a different tier entirely.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two GPUs is fundamental. The T600 is built on the Turing architecture, using the TU117 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The MX230 uses the Pascal architecture, based on the GP108 chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This generational difference explains much of the performance gap.

The T600 packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5 million per mm². The MX230 has 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, with a density of 24.3 million per mm². Interestingly, the MX230 is actually denser per square millimeter, but the T600's much larger die and far higher transistor count give it a massive resource advantage.

In terms of compute resources, the T600 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That means the T600 has 2.5 times the shading units, 2.5 times the TMUs, and twice the ROPs. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those are not differentiating factors.

The memory subsystem is another major divergence. The T600 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, achieving a bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s. The MX230 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, achieving only 48.06 GB/s. That is a 3.3 times bandwidth advantage for the T600, which is critical for texture-heavy workloads and compute tasks that saturate memory.

Clock speeds tell an interesting story. The MX230 actually runs at a much higher clock: 1,519 MHz base and 1,531 MHz boost, versus the T600's 735 MHz base and 1,335 MHz boost. The T600's lower clocks are expected given its larger die and higher power envelope, but the MX230's high clocks cannot compensate for its halved resource counts and narrow memory bus.

The T600's memory runs at 1,250 MHz (10 Gbps effective), while the MX230's memory runs at 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The T600's effective rate is higher despite the lower physical clock, thanks to GDDR6's superior signaling.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA T600 is the superior GPU by every measurable metric in this comparison. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 385.7% and 298.8%, holds a higher average benchmark score (7,035 vs 6,077), and occupies a higher percentile rank (39th vs 35th). Its architectural advantages, including a newer process node, a larger die, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, twice the memory, wider memory bus, and more than triple the memory bandwidth, all point to a card that is simply in a different class.

The MX230's only nominal advantages are its lower power draw (10 W vs 40 W) and its higher clock speeds, but those do not translate into benchmark wins. The T600's 40 W power draw is still low enough for a single-slot, fanless design with no power connectors, making it a practical choice for workstations.

For anyone choosing between these two, the T600 is the clear pick if performance is the priority. The MX230 would only be chosen if power consumption is an absolute constraint, and even then, the performance sacrifice is extreme. The recorded data shows a 385.7% difference in OpenCL and a 298.8% difference in Vulkan; there is no scenario where the MX230 catches up.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification field in the database.

• Chip: TU117 (T600) vs GP108 (MX230)
• Architecture: Turing vs Pascal
• Process Node: 12 nm (TSMC) vs 14 nm (Samsung)
• Transistors: 4,700 million vs 1,800 million
• Die Size: 200 mm² vs 74 mm²
• Transistor Density: 23.5M / mm² vs 24.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: 735 MHz vs 1,519 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1,335 MHz vs 1,531 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1,250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) vs 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR6 vs GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 160.0 GB/s vs 48.06 GB/s
• Shading Units: 640 vs 256
• TMUs: 40 vs 16
• ROPs: 32 vs 16
• Pixel Rate: 42.72 GPixel/s vs 24.50 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 53.40 GTexel/s vs 24.50 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1.709 TFLOPS vs 783.9 GFLOPS
• FP16: 3.418 TFLOPS (2:1) vs 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64)
• TDP: 40 W vs 10 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs IGP
• Suggested PSU: 200 W vs (none listed)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x4
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a vs Portable Device Dependent
• Release Date: 2021-04-11 vs 2019-02-20

The cards share the same DirectX version (12_1), OpenGL (4.6), and Vulkan (1.4) support. Neither has RT or tensor cores.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA T600, scoring 27,875 versus the MX230's 5,739, a 385.7% advantage.

Q: Does the MX230 win any benchmark in the comparison?

A: No. The T600 wins both head-to-head tests, and the MX230 has zero wins in the recorded head-to-head data.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The T600 has 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the MX230 has 48.06 GB/s, a 3.3 times difference.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The T600 has 640 shading units, while the MX230 has 256, giving the T600 2.5 times the shading capacity.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The T600 averages 7,035 across all recorded tests, while the MX230 averages 6,077. The T600 sits in the 39th percentile, and the MX230 in the 35th.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The T600 has a TDP of 40 W, while the MX230 has a TDP of 10 W. The MX230 uses less power, but at a massive performance cost.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA T600 wins in every performance category where both cards have recorded data. It dominates compute workloads, as shown by its 385.7% OpenCL lead and 298.8% Vulkan lead. Its higher pixel rate (42.72 GPixel/s vs 24.50 GPixel/s) and texture rate (53.40 GTexel/s vs 24.50 GTexel/s) indicate it is also far more capable in rasterization and texturing, even though those specific head-to-head tests were not run. The T600's 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus makes it suitable for larger datasets and higher-resolution textures than the MX230's 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus.

The MX230's only wins are in power efficiency and clock speed. Its 10 W TDP is a quarter of the T600's 40 W, and its base clock of 1,519 MHz is more than double the T600's 735 MHz. This makes the MX230 a fit for ultra-portable, fanless designs where thermal and power budgets are extremely tight. However, the benchmark data shows that this efficiency comes at the cost of roughly 75% to 80% of the T600's compute performance, depending on the test.

For workstation tasks, the T600 is the obvious choice. Its single-slot form factor, four mini-DisplayPort outputs, and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface make it a proper add-in card for professional use. The MX230, with its IGP slot width and portable-device-dependent outputs, is clearly designed for laptops and compact systems. The T600's 200 W suggested PSU means it can run on nearly any desktop power supply, while the MX230 has no PSU recommendation listed, reinforcing its mobile nature.

In summary, the T600 wins for anyone needing actual graphics or compute performance in a desktop workstation. The MX230 wins only for those who prioritize the absolute lowest power draw and are willing to accept a fraction of the performance. There is no middle ground in the recorded data.