Radeon RX 6900 XT vs GeForce GT 230M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 230M with Radeon RX 6900 XT, including specs and performance data.

GT 230M
2009
Up to 1 GB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.49

6900 XT outperforms 230M by a whopping 12243% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking127238
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data31.27
Power efficiency1.7216.23
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameGT216Navi 21
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date15 June 2009 (16 years ago)28 October 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores485120
Core clock speed500 MHz1825 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2250 MHz
Number of transistors486 million26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt300 Watt
Texture fill rate8.000720.0
Floating-point processing power0.1056 TFLOPS23.04 TFLOPS
Gigaflops158no data
ROPs8128
TMUs16320
Ray Tracing Coresno data80
L0 Cacheno data1.3 MB
L1 Cacheno data1 MB
L2 Cache64 KB4 MB
L3 Cacheno data128 MB

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data3-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amountUp to 1 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 600 (DDR2), Up to 800 (GDDR3), Up to 1066 (GDDR3) MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth16 (DDR2), 25 (DDR3)512.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 ConnectorsDual Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMISingle Link DVI1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIHDAno data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.5
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.2
CUDA+-

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 230M 0.49
RX 6900 XT 60.48
+12243%

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 230M 215
Samples: 504
RX 6900 XT 26742
+12338%
Samples: 6896

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
−19500%
196
+19500%
1440p1−2
−13300%
134
+13300%
4K0−183

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data5.10
1440pno data7.46
4Kno data12.04

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−16100%
160−170
+16100%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−3000%
150−160
+3000%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−16100%
160−170
+16100%
Far Cry 5 0−1 190−200
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−5560%
283
+5560%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−3000%
150−160
+3000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−2088%
170−180
+2088%
Valorant 27−30
−1196%
350−400
+1196%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−1535%
270−280
+1535%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−16100%
160−170
+16100%
Dota 2 10−12
−1445%
170−180
+1445%
Far Cry 5 0−1 190−200
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−5480%
279
+5480%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−3000%
150−160
+3000%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−16300%
164
+16300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−2088%
170−180
+2088%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−6360%
323
+6360%
Valorant 27−30
−1196%
350−400
+1196%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−16100%
160−170
+16100%
Dota 2 10−12
−1445%
170−180
+1445%
Far Cry 5 0−1 190−200
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−4860%
248
+4860%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−3000%
150−160
+3000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−2088%
170−180
+2088%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−3180%
164
+3180%
Valorant 27−30
−1368%
411
+1368%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−6433%
190−200
+6433%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
−25150%
500−550
+25150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−3400%
170−180
+3400%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−11450%
231
+11450%
Hogwarts Legacy 0−1 85−90
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−15200%
150−160
+15200%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 150−160

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−940%
150−160
+940%
Valorant 3−4
−10900%
300−350
+10900%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−4700%
95−100
+4700%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−3850%
75−80
+3850%

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 195
+0%
195
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Fortnite 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 196
+0%
196
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Fortnite 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 197
+0%
197
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

1440p
High

Grand Theft Auto V 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 102
+0%
102
+0%
Valorant 400−450
+0%
400−450
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 196
+0%
196
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 67
+0%
67
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 122
+0%
122
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 134
+0%
134
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 162
+0%
162
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

This is how GT 230M and RX 6900 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 6900 XT is 19500% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6900 XT is 13300% faster in 1440p

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

  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6900 XT is 25150% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 6900 XT performs better in 32 tests (52%)
  • there's a draw in 29 tests (48%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.49 60.48
Recency 15 June 2009 28 October 2020
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 300 Watt

GT 230M has 1204.3% lower power consumption.

RX 6900 XT, on the other hand, has a 12242.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 230M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 230M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX 6900 XT is a desktop 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 GT 230M
GeForce GT 230M
AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT
Radeon RX 6900 XT

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 29 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 4173 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6900 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 230M or Radeon RX 6900 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.