GeForce 8700M GT vs GT 230

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 230 with GeForce 8700M GT, including specs and performance data.

GT 230
2009, $44
512 MB GDDR3, 75 Watt
0.78
+160%

GT 230 outperforms 8700M by a whopping 160% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking12271405
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency0.800.80
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameG94BG84
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date12 October 2009 (16 years ago)1 June 2007 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$43.99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores4832
Core clock speed650 MHz625 MHz
Number of transistors505 million289 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt29 Watt
Texture fill rate15.6010.00
Floating-point processing power0.156 TFLOPS0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs2416
L2 Cache64 KB32 KB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-HE
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth57.6 GB/s25.6 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.04.0
OpenGL3.33.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.11.1

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

GT 230 0.78
+160%
8700M GT 0.30

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GT 230 323
+160%
Samples: 264
8700M GT 124
Samples: 107

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Palworld 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Palworld 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Palworld 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Palworld 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Epic

Palworld 0−1 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 30 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.78 0.30
Recency 12 October 2009 1 June 2007
Chip lithography 55 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 29 Watt

GT 230 has a 160% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 45% more advanced lithography process.

8700M GT, on the other hand, has 159% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 230 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8700M GT in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 230 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce 8700M GT is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 79 votes

Rate GeForce GT 230 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 23 votes

Rate GeForce 8700M GT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 230 or GeForce 8700M GT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.