GeForce MX230 vs 315M

Place in the ranking	1329	645
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.47	32.59
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GT218	GP108
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	5 January 2011 (13 years ago)	21 February 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

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

Pipelines / CUDA cores	16	256
Core clock speed	606 MHz	1519 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1582 MHz
Number of transistors	260 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.848	25.31
Floating-point processing power	0.03878 TFLOPS	0.81 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	73	no data
ROPs	4	16
TMUs	8	16

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 size	no data	medium sized
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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 type	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	Up to 512 MB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	48.06 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus	-	+
Power management	8.0	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 315M 0.30

GeForce MX230 4.75
+1483%

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.

GeForce 315M 115

GeForce MX230 1831
+1492%

Gaming performance

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

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD

1−2

−2000%

21
+2000%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3

−300%

8−9
+300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −333%	13 +333%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −600%	14 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Hitman 3	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −288%	30−35 +288%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −475%	23 +475%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −60.7%	45−50 +60.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −433%	16 +433%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −550%	13 +550%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Hitman 3	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −288%	30−35 +288%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −325%	16−18 +325%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −88.9%	16−18 +88.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −60.7%	45−50 +60.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −100%	6 +100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −350%	9 +350%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Hitman 3	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −288%	30−35 +288%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −325%	16−18 +325%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +0%	9 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −60.7%	45−50 +60.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	2−3
Hitman 3	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 −450%	10−12 +450%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−350%

9−10
+350%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	2−3

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−150%

5−6
+150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Battlefield 5	19 +0%	19 +0%
Far Cry 5	14 +0%	14 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	17 +0%	17 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	59 +0%	59 +0%
Metro Exodus	18 +0%	18 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Battlefield 5	13 +0%	13 +0%
Far Cry 5	12 +0%	12 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12 +0%	12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	53 +0%	53 +0%
Metro Exodus	13 +0%	13 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	7 +0%	7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12 +0%	12 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+0%

12−14

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how GeForce 315M and GeForce MX230 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX230 is 2000% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX230 is 600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX230 is ahead in 28 tests (42%)
there's a draw in 38 tests (58%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.30	4.75
Recency	5 January 2011	21 February 2019
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	10 Watt

GeForce MX230 has a 1483.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 40% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX230 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 315M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.