OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA GeForce MX230 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£700VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):?

NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

5.6/10

Overall score

Score
5.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

40%

3.7

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.6, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.7

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 93% of graphics cards
6.0

Value for money

Value for money
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

70%

5.6

Overall score

30%

6.8

Price

▼Worse than 98%
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components

44%

2.2

Performance

24%

1.3

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

6.9

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

5.4

Connectivity

▼Worse than 97%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.6.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £700
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the NVIDIA GeForce MX230

Based on 181 owners sharing their experience in online comments

13%positive9%mixed78%negative

Owners value playable results in lighter games, but low, erratic frame rates and overheating dominate the experience.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say games stutter or drop to 10–20 fps when the laptop heats up or throttles, and some find frame rates unstable even on low settings.112
  • Owners say the laptop overheats during games and heavy work, causing thermal throttling, sudden drops in performance and sometimes automatic shutdowns.28
  • Owners say the cooling fan runs loudly and constantly during games and heavy use, and some report it making grinding or scraping noises.8
  • Owners report hardware problems such as shutdowns, a failing battery or charger, screen gaps and repeated repairs under warranty.7
  • Owners say the TN screen looks yellowish, washed out and blurry, needs angle adjustment, and is poor compared with IPS panels.6
  • Owners say the battery lasts only about 1 to 4 hours and drains quickly with the screen on, and that it wears out after several months.6
  • Owners say everyday programs like Word, Chrome and Excel freeze or lag, sometimes until the system is reinstalled or the drive is upgraded.6
  • Owners say they get far fewer frames than benchmark videos show, often 10–20 fps lower in games like Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Hitman.6

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA GeForce MX230

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components:

44%

2.2

Performance

24%

1.3

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

6.9

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

5.4

Connectivity

3.7
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

70%

5.6

Overall score

30%

6.8

Price

6.0
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
851 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 851 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 98.9% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
1,825 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 1,825 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 97.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
764 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 764 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 97.9% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
0.81 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 0.81 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 97.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 2 GB of VRAM, which is less than 94.3% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
64 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 64 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 96.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.3% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
48.06 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 48.06 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 98% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
6,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 6,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 94.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x4
This graphics card uses x4 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 98.8% of graphics cards and equal to 1.2% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 94.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
3
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 3 displays, which is fewer than 91% of graphics cards and equal to 6.6% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2304
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2304, which is lower than that of 92.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
0
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 0 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 96.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
?
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
?
Power consumption while under peak load
?
Recommended PSU wattage
?
Board power limit
?
PCIe power spec
?
Show more
Size
?
Length
?
Height
?
Slot width
?
Weight
?
Show more

NVIDIA GeForce MX230 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 83.3% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (2 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    2 W vs 12 W
  • 74.8% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (74 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    74 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 74.8% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (74 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    74 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 83.3% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (2 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    2 W vs 12 W
  • 38.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,531 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,531 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 38 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (2 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    2 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 168 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (16 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    16 vs 184
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • 93.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (25.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    25.31 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 52.6% lower sentiment score
    3.7 vs 7.8
  • 24.4% worse value for money
    NVIDIA GeForce MX230 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (5.96 vs 7.4).
    5.96 vs 7.41
  • 34.6% more expensive
    NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is more expensive than the average graphics card (£700 vs £520).
    £700 vs £520
  • 38.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,531 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,531 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 38 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (2 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    2 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 168 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (16 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    16 vs 184
  • 93.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (25.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    25.31 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 84.8% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (24.5 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    24.5 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 48 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (16 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    16 vs 64
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 96.4% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (0.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    0.81 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 20.9% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,519 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,519 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 91.9% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (1,825 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    1,825 points vs 22,638 points
  • 94.2% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (851 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    851 points vs 14,779 points
  • 4 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2019 vs 2023).
    February 2019
    2019 vs 2023
  • 93.7% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (764 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    764 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 97.3% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (0.8 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    0.81 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 95.8% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.02 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 4,096 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (256 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    256 vs 4,352
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 89.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (48.1 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    48.06 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 68.4% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (6,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    6,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    64 bit vs 192 bit
  • 14.2% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,502 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,502 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 62.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (48 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    48 KB vs 128 KB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x4 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x4 vs x16
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5 vs 6.8).
    5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 92.1% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (1,800 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    1,800 million vs 22,900 million
  • 3 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (0 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    0 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (3 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    3 vs 4
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • No HDMI output
    This graphics card does not include HDMI output, the average graphics card does.
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2304 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2304 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (3 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    3 vs 6
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 13 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (80 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    80 °C vs 67 °C
  • 19 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (56 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    56 °C vs 37 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA GeForce MX230

  • Reliably handles non-demanding titles like Minecraft, Dota 2, and CS:GO at playable frame rates
  • Significant performance improvement (approx. 31%) over its predecessor, the MX130
  • Power-efficient design with a low TDP (approx. 10W), making it suitable for thin and lightweight laptops
  • Based on the newer Pascal architecture compared to older Maxwell-based entry-level cards
  • Supports modern APIs like DirectX 12.1 and OpenGL 4.6

What customers don't like about NVIDIA GeForce MX230

  • Struggles with demanding modern AAA titles, often requiring 720p resolution and low settings for barely playable results
  • Frequent reports of stuttering, freezing, or lagging in games released after 2013
  • Considerably slower (25–40%) than other entry-level options like the MX150 or MX250
  • Barely outperforms the latest generation of integrated graphics, diminishing its value as a dedicated component
  • Limited 64-bit memory bus and low shader count (256 units) severely restrict high-performance tasks and rendering

Verdict

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is an entry-level dedicated mobile graphics card launched in early 2019, based on the 14nm Pascal architecture and GP108 chip. It features 256 CUDA cores, a base clock of 1519 MHz with a boost up to 1531–1582 MHz, and typically includes 2GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 48 GB/s bandwidth. Its primary characteristics include an ultra-low power draw of just 10W TDP and support for DirectX 12, making it an efficient choice for thin-and-light laptops focused on office productivity and light multimedia. The main pros are its significantly better performance compared to integrated UHD graphics and its extremely low heat output; however, its main cons include a low shader count that limits it to 720p gaming on low settings for modern titles and a lack of support for advanced features like G-Sync or VR.

Compare NVIDIA GeForce MX230 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA GeForce MX230 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found