GeForce MX230 vs 8600 GTS

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 8600 GTS with GeForce MX230, including specs and performance data.

8600 GTS
2007
256 MB GDDR3, 60 Watt
0.44

MX230 outperforms 8600 GTS by a whopping 966% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1254652
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency0.5132.78
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameG84GP108
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date17 April 2007 (17 years ago)21 February 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores32256
Core clock speed675 MHz1519 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1582 MHz
Number of transistors289 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)60 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate10.8025.31
Floating-point processing power0.0928 TFLOPS0.81 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs1616

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 datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length198 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount256 MB2 GB
Standard memory config per GPU256 MBno data
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth32 GB/s48.06 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA1.1+

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.

8600 GTS 0.44
GeForce MX230 4.69
+966%

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.

8600 GTS 171
GeForce MX230 1827
+968%

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 HD1−2
−2000%
21
+2000%

Cost per frame, $

1080p199.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Battlefield 5 20
+0%
20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
Fortnite 33
+0%
33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24
+0%
24
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Battlefield 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65
+0%
65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 58
+0%
58
+0%
Far Cry 5 13
+0%
13
+0%
Fortnite 20
+0%
20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16
+0%
16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 19
+0%
19
+0%
Metro Exodus 4
+0%
4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21
+0%
21
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+0%
15
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 43
+0%
43
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 17
+0%
17
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
+0%
9
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 16
+0%
16
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how 8600 GTS and GeForce MX230 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX230 is 2000% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.44 4.69
Recency 17 April 2007 21 February 2019
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 60 Watt 10 Watt

GeForce MX230 has a 965.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 500% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX230 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600 GTS in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 8600 GTS is a desktop card while GeForce MX230 is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS
GeForce 8600 GTS
NVIDIA GeForce MX230
GeForce MX230

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.


3.3 206 votes

Rate GeForce 8600 GTS on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 1412 votes

Rate GeForce MX230 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 8600 GTS or GeForce MX230, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.