Tesla M6 vs GeForce GT 230M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 230M with Tesla M6, including specs and performance data.
Tesla M6 outperforms GT 230M by a whopping 2800% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1229 | 345 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.66 | 11.09 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | GM204 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 June 2009 (15 years ago) | 30 August 2015 (9 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 | 48 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 930 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1180 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 5,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.000 | 113.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1056 TFLOPS | 3.625 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 158 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 96 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | MXM Module |
| 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 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 800 (GDDR3), Up to 1066 (GDDR3) MHz | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 (DDR2), 25 (DDR3) | 160.4 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 | Dual Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMISingle Link DVI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | HDA | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK 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 | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 5.2 |
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.
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.
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 Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2650%
|
110−120
+2650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2757%
|
200−210
+2757%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−2757%
|
800−850
+2757%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−2547%
|
450−500
+2547%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−2627%
|
300−310
+2627%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2650%
|
110−120
+2650%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2757%
|
200−210
+2757%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−2650%
|
110−120
+2650%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−2757%
|
800−850
+2757%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−2627%
|
300−310
+2627%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2650%
|
110−120
+2650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2757%
|
200−210
+2757%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−2650%
|
110−120
+2650%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−2757%
|
800−850
+2757%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−2700%
|
140−150
+2700%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−2567%
|
400−450
+2567%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−2733%
|
85−90
+2733%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.48 | 13.92 |
| Recency | 15 June 2009 | 30 August 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 100 Watt |
GT 230M has 334.8% lower power consumption.
Tesla M6, on the other hand, has a 2800% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Tesla M6 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 230M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 230M is a notebook card while Tesla M6 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
