GeForce GT 230M vs GTX 960M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 960M and GeForce GT 230M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 960M outperforms GT 230M by a whopping 1462% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 536 | 1263 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.11 | 1.69 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | GT216 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 March 2015 (10 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (16 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 | 640 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1096 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1176 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 47.04 | 8.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.505 TFLOPS | 0.1056 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 158 |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 | 16 |
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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | Up to 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 800 (GDDR3), Up to 1066 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 16 (DDR2), 25 (DDR3) |
| 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 | No outputs | Dual Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMISingle Link DVI |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | HDA |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| 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.
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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 95
+1483%
| 6−7
−1483%
|
| Full HD | 35
+1650%
| 2−3
−1650%
|
| 1440p | 15 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 14 | 0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 14−16 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 28
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Fortnite | 99
+1550%
|
6−7
−1550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 80−85
+207%
|
27−30
−207%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+641%
|
16−18
−641%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+455%
|
10−12
−455%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Fortnite | 40
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 31
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 31
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+207%
|
27−30
−207%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+455%
|
10−12
−455%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 25
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+207%
|
27−30
−207%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 31
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+3050%
|
2−3
−3050%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+760%
|
5−6
−760%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+1720%
|
5−6
−1720%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 15 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 5−6 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how GTX 960M and GT 230M compete in popular games:
- GTX 960M is 1483% faster in 900p
- GTX 960M is 1650% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 960M is 3050% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 960M surpassed GT 230M in all 27 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.81 | 0.50 |
| Recency | 13 March 2015 | 15 June 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 23 Watt |
GTX 960M has a 1462% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 230M, on the other hand, has 226.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 960M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 230M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
