AMD Radeon 610M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce MX130 vs AMD Radeon 610M

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and AMD Radeon 610M are two end-of-life mobile integrated graphics processors that occupy the same overall performance percentile (32nd vs 32nd), yet achieve their positions through fundamentally different designs and benchmark profiles. The MX130, a 2017-era Maxwell part built on TSMC's 28 nm process, leads in OpenCL compute workloads, while the 610M, a 2022 RDNA 2.0 IGP on a 6 nm node, dominates in Vulkan graphics. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 5508 for the MX130 versus 5444 for the 610M — a difference of only 1.2%, but the distribution of wins tells a more complex story.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 edges out the AMD Radeon 610M with an average benchmark score of 5508 compared to 5444, a margin of approximately 1.2%. Both sit at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The MX130 wins decisively in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 6102 versus 4535 for the 610M. That represents a 34.6% advantage for the NVIDIA part in this compute-oriented test.

Q: Which GPU performs better in Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M takes the Vulkan test with a score of 6353, while the MX130 scores 4914. The delta is -22.7% from the MX130's perspective, meaning the 610M is roughly 29% faster in this API.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each GPU?

A: The MX130's nearest rival is the AMD FirePro M4000, which scores 5537, just 0.5% higher. The 610M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 at 5467, which is 0.4% faster. Both GPUs also trade places with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501) and AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483) within a 1% band.

Q: Do these GPUs support modern DirectX versions?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). The 610M also includes 2 ray tracing cores, which the MX130 lacks entirely.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M has a 15 W TDP, exactly half the 30 W TDP of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130. This makes the 610M substantially more power-efficient despite its newer process node.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent opposite ends of the integrated graphics spectrum in both time and design philosophy. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 uses the GM108S chip based on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon 610M, by contrast, uses the Mendocino chip with the RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on TSMC's 6 nm node. Its die size is 100 mm², though transistor count and density are not specified in the data.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The MX130 runs at a base clock of 1109 MHz with a boost of 1189 MHz, while the 610M starts at 1500 MHz and boosts to 1900 MHz — a 60% higher boost clock. The MX130 pairs its 384 shading units with 24 texture mapping units and 8 ROPs, whereas the 610M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and only 4 ROPs. This means the MX130 has three times the shader count, but the 610M compensates with much higher clocks and a newer instruction set.

Memory architecture is another divergence point. The MX130 uses 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The 610M uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth, which introduces latency variability based on the host platform's memory configuration. The MX130's fixed memory allocation provides predictable performance, while the 610M's shared memory approach can be faster or slower depending on the system's RAM speed and capacity.

Feature support differs substantially. The 610M includes 2 ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing that the MX130 cannot offer. The 610M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the MX130 is capped at DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the 610M's RDNA 2.0 architecture with FP16 support (972.8 GFLOPS at 2:1 ratio) provides compute flexibility the Maxwell-based MX130 lacks — the MX130 has no listed FP16 capability.

The bus interface also separates them: the MX130 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the 610M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, offering potentially higher data transfer rates to the host system. Both are IGP (integrated graphics processor) parts with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results split cleanly along API lines. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 posts a score of 6102 against the AMD Radeon 610M's 4535, giving NVIDIA a 34.6% victory. This is a substantial margin that reflects the MX130's higher raw shader throughput — 913.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 486.4 GFLOPS for the 610M. The MX130 also has higher pixel rate (9.512 GPixel/s vs 7.600 GPixel/s) and texture rate (28.54 GTexel/s vs 15.20 GTexel/s), which contributes to its compute advantage.

The Vulkan test flips the outcome dramatically. The AMD Radeon 610M scores 6353, while the MX130 manages only 4914. The deltaPct of -22.7% from the MX130's perspective means the 610M outperforms it by roughly 29% in this API. This reversal is notable because the 610M has far fewer shading units (128 vs 384) and lower FP32 throughput, yet its modern RDNA 2.0 architecture, higher clocks, and DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set appear to yield better Vulkan driver efficiency and execution. The 610M's FP16 capability (972.8 GFLOPS) may also contribute in workloads that leverage half-precision paths.

The net result is a split decision: one win each, with the MX130's OpenCL margin (34.6%) being larger than the 610M's Vulkan margin (22.7% from the MX130's perspective, or 29.3% from the 610M's). The average benchmark scores reflect this near-tie — 5508 for the MX130 and 5444 for the 610M — placing both in the same performance class despite their architectural differences.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two GPUs differ:

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX130 | AMD Radeon 610M |

|---|---|---|

| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 100 mm² |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | Not specified |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | Not specified |

| Base Clock | 1109 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1189 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 40.10 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | Not applicable |

| Shading Units | 384 | 128 |

| TMUs | 24 | 8 |

| ROPs | 8 | 4 |

| RT Cores | None | 2 |

| Pixel Rate | 9.512 GPixel/s | 7.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 28.54 GTexel/s | 15.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 913.2 GFLOPS | 486.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not specified | 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 30 W | 15 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Release Date | 2017-11-16 | 2022-09-19 |

| Predecessor | Not specified | Vega II IGP |

| Successor | Not specified | Navi III IGP |

The MX130 has a clear advantage in raw compute resources — three times the shading units, three times the TMUs, double the ROPs, and nearly double the FP32 throughput. The 610M counters with a much smaller process node, roughly double the boost clock, half the TDP, and 2:1 FP16 support.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is the choice for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. Its 34.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with higher pixel and texture rates, makes it better suited for applications that leverage traditional GPGPU compute paths. The dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with fixed 40.10 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent memory performance independent of system RAM, which benefits workloads requiring predictable memory access. For users running CUDA-optimized or OpenCL-based applications, the MX130's 384 shaders and 913.2 GFLOPS FP32 throughput offer a substantial compute advantage over the 610M.

The AMD Radeon 610M wins in Vulkan-based workloads, scoring 6353 versus 4914 — a significant margin that suggests better driver optimization and modern API feature utilization. Its RDNA 2.0 architecture with 2 ray tracing cores opens the door to hardware ray tracing, which the MX130 cannot handle at all. The 610M's DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) versus the MX130's 12 (11_0) also positions it better for newer games and applications that rely on advanced DX12 features. The 610M's much lower TDP (15 W vs 30 W) and newer 6 nm process make it the more efficient choice for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals are priorities. Its system shared memory can also be an advantage in unified memory architectures where the CPU and GPU share a large pool of fast system RAM.

For general-purpose use, the two GPUs are effectively tied — the average benchmark scores differ by only 1.2%, and both sit at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs. The decision between them should hinge on the specific application mix: OpenCL compute favors the MX130, while Vulkan gaming, ray tracing, and power efficiency favor the 610M. The MX130's end-of-life status and 2017 release date mean it lacks the architectural advancements of the 2022-era 610M, but its raw compute resources remain competitive with a much newer part.