AMD Radeon 760M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive victory for the AMD Radeon 760M in every shared benchmark test. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon 760M scores 20,255 points against the NVIDIA GeForce MX130’s 6,102 points, a delta of 231.9% in favor of the AMD part. This is not a marginal lead; the AMD solution more than triples the NVIDIA GPU’s OpenCL throughput, which indicates a substantial advantage in general-purpose compute workloads that leverage OpenCL.

The gap widens further in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the AMD Radeon 760M records 30,336 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 manages only 4,914 points. The delta reaches 517.3%, meaning the AMD GPU delivers over six times the Vulkan performance of the MX130. Vulkan tends to stress modern graphics features and driver efficiency, so this result suggests the Radeon 760M is in a completely different performance tier for contemporary gaming APIs. The MX130, based on older Maxwell architecture, simply cannot keep pace in this API.

The head-to-head tally is clean: the AMD Radeon 760M wins both recorded comparisons, with 2 wins and 0 losses. There are no benchmark tests where the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 comes out ahead in this dataset. While the MX130 does have a small edge in its own percentile ranking context (32nd percentile versus the Radeon’s 35th percentile, both relative to all GPUs), that gap does not translate into any direct benchmark victory. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the Radeon 760M averages 6,019 points, while the MX130 averages 5,508 points, a difference of roughly 9% in aggregate across all recorded tests.

It is worth remembering the MX130 has only two recorded benchmark entries in the database, both of which are Geekbench tests, whereas the Radeon 760M has a broader set including 3DMark and Passmark entries. This disparity in test coverage means the MX130’s average is drawn from a smaller sample, but the direct comparisons where both GPUs ran the same test still show overwhelming AMD superiority.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M records an average benchmark score of 6,019, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 5,508. The Radeon leads by approximately 9% in aggregate.

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon 760M in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon 760M scores 20,255 versus the MX130’s 6,102, a 231.9% advantage for the AMD GPU.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The database records 2 wins for the AMD Radeon 760M and 0 wins for the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 across all shared tests.

Q: What is the Vulkan performance difference between these two GPUs?

A: The Radeon 760M scores 30,336 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the MX130 scores 4,914, giving the AMD part a 517.3% lead in this test.

Q: How do these GPUs rank relative to all GPUs in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M sits at the 35th percentile, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 sits at the 32nd percentile. Both are in the lower half of all recorded GPUs, but the Radeon is positioned slightly higher.

Q: Which GPU has more recorded benchmark entries?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M has ten recorded benchmark entries, covering 3DMark, Geekbench, and Passmark tests. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 has only two entries, both from Geekbench.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 760M is the clear choice for anyone prioritizing raw graphics compute performance. Its wins in both OpenCL and Vulkan are not incremental; they are dominant, with deltas of 231.9% and 517.3% respectively. This makes the Radeon 760M suitable for workloads that stress these APIs, such as modern game engines that use Vulkan, or compute tasks that offload to OpenCL. The Radeon also holds a higher average benchmark score (6,019 versus 5,508) and a higher percentile ranking (35th versus 32nd), which suggests it is the more capable part across a wider range of tests.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130, on the other hand, does not win a single recorded benchmark. Its only potential advantage lies in its lower power draw relative to its performance ceiling, but the data does not show any test where that translates into a performance win. In practical terms, the MX130 might be adequate for light, legacy DirectX 11 workloads, given its Passmark DirectX 11 score is 52 (though the Radeon 760M scores 25 in DirectX 12 and 65 in DirectX 9, indicating mixed API-specific results). However, the MX130 lacks any recorded Vulkan or OpenCL scores that would suggest competitiveness. For users who need modern API support, the Radeon 760M is the only viable option based on the database.

Where the MX130 could still be considered is in scenarios where the host system is older, given its 2017 release date and PCIe 3.0 x4 interface. But from a pure performance standpoint, the database shows no scenario where the MX130 wins.

Specification Differences

The most striking specification gap is in manufacturing process and die size. The AMD Radeon 760M is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 178 mm² and 25,390 million transistors. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with a die size of 77 mm² and 1,020 million transistors. This results in a transistor density of 142.6 million per mm² for the Radeon versus 13.2 million per mm² for the MX130, a massive difference in integration density.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The Radeon 760M runs at a base clock of 800 MHz and boosts to 2599 MHz, while the MX130 operates at 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost. The Radeon’s boost clock is more than double the MX130’s, which directly contributes to its higher throughput. Memory configurations are completely different: the Radeon uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the MX130 has dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth.

The compute unit counts show the Radeon’s advantage: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs versus the MX130’s 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Radeon also includes 8 ray tracing cores, which the MX130 lacks entirely. Pixel rate and texture rate follow the same pattern: the Radeon achieves 41.58 GPixel/s and 83.17 GTexel/s, while the MX130 manages 9.512 GPixel/s and 28.54 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 5.323 TFLOPS for the Radeon versus 913.2 GFLOPS for the MX130, a near-sixfold difference. The Radeon also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, which the MX130 does not support at all.

Power and interface differences are notable too. The Radeon 760M has a TDP of 15 W, while the MX130 draws 30 W. The Radeon uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, whereas the MX130 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. Display outputs are motherboard-dependent for the Radeon and portable-device-dependent for the MX130, reflecting their intended usage contexts.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 760M is based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation. It uses the Phoenix chip and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The inclusion of ray tracing cores (8 of them) is a fundamental architectural feature that the MX130 cannot match, as it has none. The Radeon also supports FP16 compute at full rate, which is a hallmark of RDNA 3.0’s compute design.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is based on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip. It belongs to the GeForce MX (1xx) generation and supports DirectX 12 (11_0), which is a lower feature level than the Radeon’s 12_2. It also supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but its Vulkan performance, as shown in the benchmarks, is far inferior. Maxwell predates hardware ray tracing and lacks dedicated RT cores, so it relies entirely on traditional rasterization.

The process node difference (4 nm versus 28 nm) is a generational leap. The Radeon’s 4 nm node allows for significantly higher transistor density and clock speeds at lower power, which is why it can deliver over five times the FP32 throughput while consuming half the TDP (15 W versus 30 W). The MX130’s 28 nm node is a legacy process that limits its efficiency and performance ceiling.

Architecturally, the Radeon 760M is designed for modern workloads, including ray tracing and compute-heavy tasks, while the MX130 is a budget mobile GPU from an earlier era, optimized for basic acceleration rather than high-end features. The database shows this in the API support: the Radeon supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the MX130 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0).

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon 760M is the superior GPU in every measured dimension. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score (6,019 versus 5,508), and holds a better percentile ranking (35th versus 32nd). The performance deltas are so large (231.9% in OpenCL, 517.3% in Vulkan) that the MX130 is not competitive in any shared test.

Users who need modern graphics features, such as ray tracing or Vulkan performance, should choose the AMD Radeon 760M without hesitation. Its RDNA 3.0 architecture, 4 nm process, and 8 RT cores place it far ahead of the Maxwell-based MX130. The Radeon also offers higher FP32 compute (5.323 TFLOPS versus 913.2 GFLOPS) and lower power draw (15 W versus 30 W), making it both faster and more efficient.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 might still be found in older laptops, and it does have dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory, which could be an advantage in scenarios where system-shared memory is constrained. However, the database does not record any benchmark where this translates into a win. For any user comparing these two parts, the data points decisively to the AMD Radeon 760M as the better choice for both gaming and compute workloads.