GPU Comparison

The AMD FirePro M4000 and NVIDIA GeForce MX130 occupy the same performance tier despite being released five years apart. Both are end-of-life mobile graphics solutions aimed at different use cases: the FirePro M4000 as a professional workstation part, the MX130 as a mainstream consumer laptop GPU. Benchmark data places both at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, indicating they are entry-level performers by modern standards. The MX130 edges ahead in raw compute tests, but the FirePro M4000 counters with a wider memory bus and more shading units. Below is a detailed comparison based strictly on the available benchmark and specification data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 6102 against the AMD FirePro M4000's 5537. That is a 9.3% advantage for the MX130, a meaningful gap for GPUs in this performance class. The MX130's OpenCL result reflects its higher FP32 throughput of 913.2 GFLOPS compared to the FirePro M4000's 691.2 GFLOPS, a 32% raw compute advantage that does not fully translate to the benchmark score, likely due to driver optimization and memory subsystem differences.

The MX130 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4914, a test the FirePro M4000 does not have data for. Vulkan is a lower-overhead API, and the MX130's support for Vulkan 1.4 (versus the FirePro's 1.2.170) suggests better modern API efficiency. However, the FirePro M4000 counters in theoretical pixel throughput: its 10.80 GPixel/s exceeds the MX130's 9.512 GPixel/s by about 13.5%, meaning the AMD part can push more filled pixels per second in rasterization-heavy workloads.

Texture rate tells the opposite story. The MX130's 28.54 GTexel/s beats the FirePro M4000's 21.60 GTexel/s by 32%. This is a direct result of the MX130's higher clock speeds, 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost versus the FirePro's unspecified base/boost clocks. Memory bandwidth is where the FirePro M4000 wins decisively: 64.00 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s, a 59.6% advantage. The FirePro achieves this with a 128-bit bus and 1000 MHz memory (4 Gbps effective), while the MX130 uses a narrower 64-bit bus at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). For bandwidth-sensitive tasks like texture streaming in large scenes, the AMD part has a clear edge.

In the nearest rival comparisons, the two GPUs sit nearly on top of each other. The FirePro M4000's average score is 5537, while the MX130's is 5508, a 0.5% difference in the AMD's favor. The MX130 lists the FirePro as a rival with a -0.5% delta, confirming they are functionally equivalent in aggregate benchmarks. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501) and AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483) are essentially tied with both cards, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604) is about 1.2% faster than the FirePro M4000 and 1.7% faster than the MX130. These margins are within run-to-run variance, meaning real-world performance will be indistinguishable in most applications.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split recommendation. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is the pick, its 9.3% OpenCL lead and 32% higher FP32 throughput make it better suited for GPU-accelerated tasks like video encoding or physics simulations that leverage shader compute. The MX130 also brings Vulkan 1.4 support, which the FirePro M4000 lacks, making it more future-proof for modern games and applications using that API.

For users whose workloads are bandwidth-limited, the AMD FirePro M4000 is the better choice. Its 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth (59.6% higher than the MX130) and 128-bit bus are advantages in scenarios like large texture loads, high-resolution frame buffers, or professional visualization tasks where memory throughput matters more than raw compute. The FirePro M4000's higher pixel rate (10.80 vs 9.512 GPixel/s) also makes it marginally better for fill-rate-bound scenarios at lower resolutions.

The professional positioning of the FirePro M4000, with its MXM module form factor and FirePro Mobility lineage, suggests it was designed for workstation laptops where driver certification and stability take precedence over peak performance. The MX130, as an IGP-class part with PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, targets mainstream consumer ultrabooks where power efficiency (30 W TDP) and compactness matter. Both are end-of-life products, so the choice hinges on the specific workload and available driver support in the host system. If you must pick one today, the MX130 has the edge in compute, but the FirePro M4000 remains competitive in memory-throughput-dependent tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has an average benchmark score of 5537, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 5508. The FirePro M4000 is ahead by 0.5%, which is within normal benchmark variance.

Q: How much faster is the MX130 in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 6102 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the FirePro M4000's 5537, a 9.3% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Which GPU has better memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has 64.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is 59.6% higher than the MX130's 40.10 GB/s. The FirePro uses a 128-bit bus, while the MX130 uses a 64-bit bus.

Q: Does the FirePro M4000 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the FirePro M4000 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, but the MX130 supports a newer Vulkan 1.4 specification. The MX130 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4914, while no Vulkan benchmark is available for the FirePro.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The FirePro M4000 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the MX130 has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The MX130 has a higher transistor density at 13.2M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm².

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, compared to 384 on the NVIDIA MX130. However, the MX130's higher clock speeds (1189 MHz boost) result in higher FP32 throughput (913.2 GFLOPS vs 691.2 GFLOPS).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ significantly in memory configuration, die size, and interface. The FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory, while the MX130 doubles that to 2 GB. Memory bus width differs by a factor of two: 128-bit for AMD versus 64-bit for NVIDIA, leading to the bandwidth gap noted earlier. The FirePro M4000's memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the MX130's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), the higher speed partially compensates for the narrower bus.

Clock speeds are only specified for the MX130: 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost. The FirePro M4000's base and boost clocks are not provided in the data. Shading units favor AMD (512 vs 384), as do TMUs (32 vs 24) and ROPs (16 vs 8). The MX130 has a higher pixel rate despite fewer ROPs due to its clock advantage, 9.512 GPixel/s versus 10.80 GPixel/s for the FirePro, which is odd given the ROP count. Texture rate favors NVIDIA at 28.54 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s.

Power consumption is close: 33 W for the FirePro M4000 and 30 W for the MX130. The FirePro M4000 uses an MXM Module slot with MXM-A (3.0) interface, while the MX130 is an IGP with PCIe 3.0 x4. Both have no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. DirectX support differs slightly: the FirePro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). OpenGL is identical at 4.6, but Vulkan differs (1.2.170 vs 1.4).

Architecture Differences

The FirePro M4000 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture with the "Chelsea" chip, while the MX130 uses Maxwell architecture with the "GM108S" chip. Both are manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process, but the FirePro M4000's die is significantly larger at 123 mm² versus 77 mm² for the MX130. Transistor counts reflect this: 1,500 million for AMD versus 1,020 million for NVIDIA. The MX130 achieves higher transistor density (13.2M per mm²) despite being a later design.

The FirePro M4000 belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx000) generation with a predecessor of FirePro Mobility and successor of Radeon Pro Mobile. The MX130 belongs to the GeForce MX (1xx) generation with no listed predecessor or successor. The FirePro M4000 was released in June 2012, while the MX130 came in November 2017, a 5-year gap that explains the MX130's more modern API support despite similar performance.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both lack FP16 support in the data. The MX130's Maxwell architecture is known for better power efficiency per clock, which is reflected in its slightly lower TDP (30 W) despite higher clock speeds. The FirePro M4000's GCN 1.0 architecture is older but features a wider memory subsystem, which is its primary advantage. The MX130's Vulkan 1.4 support versus the FirePro's 1.2.170 indicates better driver maturity for modern APIs on the NVIDIA side.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce MX130 wins in: OpenCL compute (6102 vs 5537, 9.3% faster), FP32 throughput (913.2 GFLOPS vs 691.2 GFLOPS), texture fill rate (28.54 GTexel/s vs 21.60 GTexel/s), Vulkan support (1.4 vs 1.2.170), memory capacity (2 GB vs 1 GB), and memory speed (5 Gbps vs 4 Gbps effective). It also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 4914, which the FirePro M4000 cannot match. The MX130's higher boost clock of 1189 MHz contributes to its compute advantages.

AMD FirePro M4000 wins in: Memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs 40.10 GB/s, 59.6% higher), memory bus width (128-bit vs 64-bit), pixel fill rate (10.80 GPixel/s vs 9.512 GPixel/s), shading units (512 vs 384), TMUs (32 vs 24), ROPs (16 vs 8), and transistor count (1,500 million vs 1,020 million). Its average benchmark score is also slightly higher (5537 vs 5508, 0.5% lead), though this is within noise.

For gaming, the MX130's higher texture rate and compute performance make it better for modern titles that rely on shader-heavy effects. The FirePro M4000's bandwidth advantage helps in older games or applications that stream large textures. For professional workloads like CAD or visualization, the FirePro M4000's workstation heritage and wider memory bus are beneficial, though its lower compute throughput may limit GPU-accelerated tasks. The MX130 is the better all-rounder for consumer use, while the FirePro M4000 suits niche bandwidth-sensitive professional applications.