GeForce MX230 vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3670
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 3670 and GeForce MX230, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX230 outperforms ATI Mobility HD 3670 by a whopping 963% 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 | 1301 | 692 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.04 | 33.21 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | M86 | GP108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2008 (17 years ago) | 21 February 2019 (6 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 | 120 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 680 MHz | 1519 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1582 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 378 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.440 | 25.31 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1632 TFLOPS | 0.81 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 8 | 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 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | 256 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 48.06 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 1−2
−2000%
| 21
+2000%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−425%
|
21
+425%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−243%
|
24
+243%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−119%
|
55−60
+119%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−333%
|
65
+333%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−480%
|
58
+480%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−300%
|
16
+300%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 4 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−200%
|
21
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−200%
|
15
+200%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−119%
|
55−60
+119%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−330%
|
43
+330%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−200%
|
12
+200%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−143%
|
17
+143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−80%
|
9
+80%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−119%
|
55−60
+119%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−3300%
|
30−35
+3300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−750%
|
30−35
+750%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 9−10 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−1000%
|
21−24
+1000%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| God of War | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| God of War | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how ATI Mobility HD 3670 and GeForce MX230 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX230 is 2000% 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 GeForce MX230 is 3300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX230 performs better in 30 tests (51%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (49%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.41 | 4.36 |
| Recency | 7 January 2008 | 21 February 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 10 Watt |
GeForce MX230 has a 963.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX230 is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 3670 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.
