GeForce MX230 vs GT 420M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 420M and GeForce MX230, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 420M
2010
1 GB DDR3, 23 Watt
1.03

MX230 outperforms GT 420M by a whopping 361% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1103645
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.0732.56
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGF108GP108
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 September 2010 (14 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 cores96256
Core clock speed500 MHz1519 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1582 MHz
Number of transistors585 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate8.00025.31
Floating-point processing power0.192 TFLOPS0.81 TFLOPS
ROPs416
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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
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.

GT 420M 1.03
GeForce MX230 4.75
+361%

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 420M 396
GeForce MX230 1830
+362%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GT 420M 685
GeForce MX230 3364
+391%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GT 420M 1583
GeForce MX230 6656
+320%

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:

900p12
−358%
55−60
+358%
Full HD16
−31.3%
21
+31.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−160%
13
+160%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−250%
14
+250%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1300%
14
+1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−750%
17
+750%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 59
Hitman 3 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−138%
30−35
+138%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−1200%
12−14
+1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−229%
23
+229%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−40.6%
45−50
+40.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−220%
16
+220%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−225%
13
+225%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1100%
12
+1100%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−500%
12
+500%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 53
Hitman 3 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−138%
30−35
+138%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−1200%
12−14
+1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−143%
16−18
+143%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−54.5%
16−18
+54.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−40.6%
45−50
+40.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−20%
6
+20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−125%
9
+125%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−600%
7
+600%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 12
Hitman 3 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−138%
30−35
+138%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−143%
16−18
+143%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+22.2%
9
−22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−40.6%
45−50
+40.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−1200%
12−14
+1200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Hitman 3 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−175%
10−12
+175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 4−5
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 3−4

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 2−3
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 2−3
Far Cry 5 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%
Metro Exodus 18
+0%
18
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 13
+0%
13
+0%
Metro Exodus 13
+0%
13
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 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

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how GT 420M and GeForce MX230 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX230 is 358% faster in 900p
  • GeForce MX230 is 31% faster in 1080p

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 420M is 22% faster.
  • in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX230 is 1300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 420M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • GeForce MX230 is ahead in 42 tests (70%)
  • there's a draw in 17 tests (28%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.03 4.75
Recency 3 September 2010 21 February 2019
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 10 Watt

GeForce MX230 has a 361.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 130% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX230 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 420M in performance tests.


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

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 420M
GeForce GT 420M
NVIDIA GeForce MX230
GeForce MX230

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2.7 122 votes

Rate GeForce GT 420M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 1387 votes

Rate GeForce MX230 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.