GeForce MX230 vs 8800 GT
Aggregated performance score
MX230 outperforms 8800 GT by 283% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 997 | 607 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 0.02 | 1.62 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | G92 | N17S-G0 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 October 2007 (16 years ago) | 20 February 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $349 | no data |
| Current price | $166 (0.5x MSRP) | $1221 |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce MX230 has 8000% better value for money than 8800 GT.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 112 | 256 |
| CUDA cores | 112 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1519 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1531 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 33.6 billion/sec | 25.31 |
| Floating-point performance | 336.0 gflops | no data |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on GeForce 8800 GT and GeForce MX230 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 9" (22.9 cm) | no data |
| Height | Single Slot | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 6-pin & 8-pin | None |
| SLI options | 2-way | no data |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 7000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.6 GB/s | 48.06 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | Dual Link DVIHDTV | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Supported Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | 128bit | no data |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
MX230 outperforms 8800 GT by 283% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
MX230 outperforms 8800 GT by 282% in Passmark.
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 | 5−6
−320%
| 21
+320%
|
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 1.24 | 4.75 |
| Recency | 29 October 2007 | 20 February 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 10 Watt |
The GeForce MX230 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GT in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 8800 GT is a desktop card while GeForce MX230 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
