AMD Radeon HD 8750M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce MX130 vs AMD Radeon HD 8750M

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and AMD Radeon HD 8750M are both end-of-life mobile graphics processors targeting thin-and-light laptops, but they come from different architectural eras. The MX130, built on the Maxwell architecture with a GM108S chip, launched in late 2017, while the HD 8750M uses AMD's older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Mars chip, dating back to early 2013. Both are entry-level parts, but the data reveals that the MX130 holds a slim lead in raw compute performance, while the HD 8750M offers a slightly better overall percentile ranking despite its age. The following analysis breaks down the architectural differences, benchmark results, specification gaps, and which GPU suits which scenario—strictly from the provided fact pack.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL benchmark performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 wins the only head-to-head benchmark test (geekbench_opencl) with a score of 6102, defeating the AMD Radeon HD 8750M's 5970 by a 2.2% margin.

Q: How do the two compare in terms of overall GPU percentile ranking?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8750M ranks in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, which is slightly higher than the NVIDIA GeForce MX130's 32nd percentile, indicating the HD 8750M sits marginally better relative to the broader GPU landscape.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 has an average benchmark score of 5508, while the AMD Radeon HD 8750M has a higher average of 5970, despite losing the direct OpenCL comparison.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12, but with different feature levels: the MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the HD 8750M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), giving the AMD part a slightly higher feature level.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU based on average score?

A: For the MX130, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (deltaPct 0.1%), followed by the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (0.5%) and AMD FirePro M4000 (-0.5%). For the HD 8750M, the closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (0.2%), with the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (0.3%) and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (-0.2%) close behind.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 has a significantly higher memory bandwidth of 40.10 GB/s, compared to the AMD Radeon HD 8750M's 28.80 GB/s, due to its faster GDDR5 memory on a narrower 64-bit bus versus the HD 8750M's DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, reflecting roughly four years of development. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 uses the Maxwell architecture on the GM108S chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon HD 8750M employs the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Mars chip, also on TSMC's 28 nm node, but with 950 million transistors on the same 77 mm² die, resulting in a slightly lower transistor density of 12.3M per mm². Both share identical core counts: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. The key architectural difference lies in the memory subsystem: the MX130 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 5 Gbps effective memory speed, while the HD 8750M uses 1 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus at 1800 Mbps effective. This means the MX130 achieves higher bandwidth (40.10 GB/s) despite the narrower bus, while the HD 8750M trades bandwidth for a wider interface.

Clock speeds also diverge significantly. The MX130 runs at a 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost, while the HD 8750M operates at just 775 MHz base and 825 MHz boost. This clock advantage, combined with the newer Maxwell architecture, drives the MX130's higher fill rates: 9.512 GPixel/s pixel rate and 28.54 GTexel/s texture rate, versus the HD 8750M's 6.600 GPixel/s and 19.80 GTexel/s, respectively. The FP32 compute output follows suit: the MX130 delivers 913.2 GFLOPS, while the HD 8750M produces 633.6 GFLOPS. In terms of API support, the MX130 offers Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6, while the HD 8750M provides Vulkan 1.2.170 and OpenGL 4.6, with the AMD part having a slight edge in DirectX feature level (11_1 vs 11_0). The MX130 also has a defined TDP of 30 W and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, whereas the HD 8750M has no TDP or slot width data listed. The MX130 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the HD 8750M uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 wins with a score of 6102 against the AMD Radeon HD 8750M's 5970. This 2.2% delta is modest but consistent with the MX130's higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth. The MX130's advantage in this test likely stems from its 1109 MHz base clock (versus 775 MHz) and its 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, which aids compute workloads that are memory-sensitive. However, the HD 8750M's average benchmark score (5970) is actually higher than the MX130's (5508), which is counterintuitive given the direct comparison result. This discrepancy suggests that the MX130's average is dragged down by other benchmark results not shown in the head-to-head data, possibly due to its lower overall percentile (32nd vs 34th). The HD 8750M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (deltaPct -0.2%) and Quadro K620M (0.2%), while the MX130's closest competitor is the GeForce GTX 765M (0.1%)—both GPUs are clustered within a tight performance band, indicating that neither holds a decisive performance edge over its immediate peers.

Looking at the wins tally, the MX130 takes 1 win in the head-to-head benchmarks, while the HD 8750M has 0 wins. This makes the MX130 the clear winner in direct comparison, but the margin is slim enough that real-world differences would be minor. The MX130's higher texture rate (28.54 GTexel/s vs 19.80 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (9.512 GPixel/s vs 6.600 GPixel/s) suggest it should perform better in graphics-bound tasks, but the HD 8750M's wider 128-bit memory bus may help in certain memory-latency-sensitive workloads. Notably, the HD 8750M has no Vulkan benchmark score in the data, while the MX130 posts a 4914 in Geekbench Vulkan, indicating the NVIDIA part has been validated across more API tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX130 | AMD Radeon HD 8750M |

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

| Chip | GM108S | Mars |

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | GeForce MX (1xx) | Solar System (HD 8700M) |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 950 million |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1109 MHz | 775 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1189 MHz | 825 MHz |

| Memory Speed | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 40.10 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 9.512 GPixel/s | 6.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 28.54 GTexel/s | 19.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 913.2 GFLOPS | 633.6 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | (not specified) |

| Slot Width | IGP | (not specified) |

| Power Connectors | None | (not specified) |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | (not specified) |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2017-11-16 | 2013-02-25 |

| Predecessor | (not specified) | London |

| Successor | (not specified) | Gem System |

The most striking differences are in memory: the MX130 uses faster GDDR5 with double the capacity (2 GB vs 1 GB) and higher bandwidth, while the HD 8750M relies on slower DDR3 with a wider bus. Clock speeds favor the MX130 by roughly 340 MHz at base and 364 MHz at boost. The TDP of 30 W for the MX130 versus no listed TDP for the HD 8750M indicates the NVIDIA part is designed for low-power integration, as expected for an IGP. The HD 8750M has a slightly higher DirectX feature level, but the MX130 offers a newer Vulkan version.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 as the stronger performer in direct benchmarks, winning the only head-to-head OpenCL test by 2.2% and posting higher theoretical rates across the board—913.2 GFLOPS FP32 versus 633.6 GFLOPS, 9.512 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s, and 28.54 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s. Its 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth also gives it a clear advantage over the HD 8750M's 1 GB DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s. For users prioritizing compute or graphics throughput in a thin-and-light laptop, the MX130 is the logical choice, particularly given its later release date (2017 vs 2013) and lower power envelope (30 W TDP). The MX130's Vulkan 1.4 support also makes it more future-proof for modern API-based workloads.

However, the AMD Radeon HD 8750M is not without merit. Its higher percentile ranking (34th vs 32nd) and higher average benchmark score (5970 vs 5508) suggest that, in a broader context, it may hold up better in a wider range of tests not captured in the head-to-head data. Its wider 128-bit memory bus and DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level could benefit certain legacy or memory-latency-sensitive applications. The HD 8750M also has a defined predecessor (London) and successor (Gem System), indicating a clear product lineage, whereas the MX130's series data is less detailed. For users running older software that favors GCN architecture or needing a GPU with a wider memory interface, the HD 8750M could be a viable option, especially if found in a system at a lower price point—though pricing is not considered here.

In summary, the MX130 wins on raw performance, memory bandwidth, and modern API support, while the HD 8750M edges out on percentile ranking and average score. The choice depends on whether the user values peak compute (MX130) or overall consistency across a broader benchmark suite (HD 8750M). Given the 2.2% delta in the direct test, the practical difference is small, but the MX130's architectural advantages make it the safer bet for current and near-future workloads.