AMD
Radeon 840M vs GeForce GT 230
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
NVIDIA
GT 230
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 840M and GT 230 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Radeon 840M outperforms GT 230 by ~113% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+113%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Partially verifiedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 16Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: Radeon 840M (~19%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider Radeon 840M
- Higher catalog performance index
- Recorded feature support: Not publicly specified · AMD FSR
Reasons to consider GT 230
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1 · Not supported
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
AMD
NVIDIAPerformance
8339
Graphics card ranking
Positions 39–44of 411
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce GT 230
171 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
83Better
39
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
66Better
34
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
64Better
32
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
61
100Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
68Better
57
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Device class
Architecture
Process nodeBetter
Shader units / coresBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAM
Memory type
Memory bus
Interface
Power consumption
Power connector
Length
Thickness
Recommended PSU
HDMI
DisplayPort
USB Type-C
Max monitors
Max resolution
DirectX
Upscaling
Release date
TFLOPS
Vulkan
OpenGL
Compute API
Transistor count
Die size
Base clock
Memory bandwidth
Memory frequency
Memory cache
Clock speed
Launch price—
Power consumption—
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares Radeon 840M and GT 230 across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
Radeon 840MGT 230
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
—
196 FPS
1080p Ultra
—
138 FPS
1440p Ultra
—
77 FPS
4K Ultra
—
29 FPS
Counter-Strike 2Radeon 840M—GT 230196 FPSRadeon 840M—GT 230138 FPSRadeon 840M—GT 23077 FPSRadeon 840M—GT 23029 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077Radeon 840M—GT 230126 FPSRadeon 840M—GT 230109 FPSRadeon 840M—GT 23056 FPSRadeon 840M—GT 23020 FPS
Forza Horizon 5Radeon 840M—GT 230159 FPSRadeon 840M—GT 230103 FPSRadeon 840M—GT 23069 FPSRadeon 840M—GT 23043 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyRadeon 840M—GT 230103 FPSRadeon 840M—GT 23086 FPSRadeon 840M—GT 23050 FPSRadeon 840M—GT 23020 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100833972%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100853291%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100833289%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100013200%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1000100200%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 1008327102%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100832899%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100833289%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 1008324110%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100833191%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX1210.0
VulkanNot publicly specifiedNot supported
OpenGLNot publicly specified3.3
UpscalingAMD FSRNot supported
Compute APINot publicly specifiedOpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1
Architecture and release
ArchitectureRDNA 3.5Tesla
Process node4 nmBetter55 nm
Release date20252009
Device classMobileDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor countNot publicly specified505 million
Die sizeNot publicly specified196 mm²
Shader units / cores4 Compute Units48Better
Base clockNot publicly specified650 MHz
Boost clockUp to 2900 MHz (depends on host processor)Better650 MHz
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfaceIntegrated into processor packagePCIe 2x16
LengthNot applicable (integrated GPU)Varies by board
ThicknessNot applicable (integrated GPU)Single-slot
Recommended PSUSystem dependent250 W
Power connectorNot applicable (integrated GPU)None
Display outputs and limits
HDMIHDMI 2.1 (OEM dependent)Board dependent
DisplayPortDisplayPort 2.1 (OEM dependent)Board dependent
USB Type-CDisplayPort Alt Mode supported; OEM dependentNo
Max monitors4 (platform capability)Varies by board
Max resolution7680 x 4320 @ 60 Hz (DisplayPort)Varies by board
Memory and compute throughput
VRAMShared system memory; OEM configurable512 MB GDDR3
Memory typeShared DDR5 / LPDDR5XGDDR3
Memory busDepends on system memory configuration256 bit
TFLOPSNot publicly specified0.156
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 16
- Specifications
- 18 / 68
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (2)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (2)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: Radeon 840M or GT 230?+
Radeon 840M has the higher overall gaming score, while GT 230 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
GT 230 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
GT 230 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
Radeon 840M offers more overall performance, while Radeon 840M offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
GT 230 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
GT 230 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
Radeon 840M leads in combined 1440p performance. Radeon 840M can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
Radeon 840M is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
GT 230 is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
GT 230 is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to Radeon 840M if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.