AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data places the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and AMD Radeon R5 M255 in a surprisingly close contest, though the nature of their wins differs sharply. Across the two recorded Geekbench tests, each GPU claims one victory, but the margins are anything but symmetrical.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 delivers a decisive blow. It scores 6102 points against the AMD Radeon R5 M255's 4650 points, a 31.2% advantage. This is a commanding lead, placing the MX130 firmly ahead in compute-oriented workloads that leverage OpenCL. The magnitude of this gap suggests that the Maxwell-based chip's higher clock speeds and superior memory bandwidth translate directly into raw throughput. The MX130's average benchmark score of 5508 across all recorded tests reinforces this, as it sits notably above the R5 M255's 4788 average.

The Vulkan test tells a different story, one of near-perfect parity. Here, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 edges out the MX130 by a razor-thin margin, scoring 4925 against 4914. The delta is only 0.2%, which is effectively a statistical tie. This result indicates that in modern graphics API workloads, the architectural differences between GCN 3.0 and Maxwell essentially cancel out, or at least that neither GPU possesses a meaningful advantage in this specific test. The MX130's Vulkan score of 4914 is still respectable, but it does not replicate the dominance seen in OpenCL.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the MX130's average score of 5508 places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (a 0.1% difference), the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537 (where the MX130 trails by 0.5%), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483 (0.5% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 at 5467 (0.7% ahead). This places the MX130 in a narrow performance band where small margins separate it from its peers, though the 31.2% OpenCL victory over the R5 M255 shows it can decisively outclass a weaker opponent in the right workload.

The R5 M255, with an average score of 4788, sits in the 28th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4791, a peculiar comparison where the R5 M255 trails by only 0.1%, though this likely reflects the benchmark's averaging methodology rather than real-world performance parity. More relevant comparisons include the AMD Radeon R5 M335 at 4752 (where the R5 M255 leads by 0.8%), the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX at 4727 (1.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX at 4844 (where the R5 M255 trails by 1.2%). The R5 M255's position in this cluster suggests it is a competent entry-level part, but one that cannot match the MX130's peak compute performance.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is the clear winner for compute-heavy workloads. Its 31.2% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL demonstrates that applications leveraging this API, such as certain rendering tasks, video encoding, or general-purpose GPU compute, will see substantially better performance on the MX130. The GPU's higher base clock of 1109 MHz and boost clock of 1189 MHz, combined with GDDR5 memory running at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), contribute to a fill rate advantage. The MX130's pixel rate of 9.512 GPixel/s and texture rate of 28.54 GTexel/s outpace the R5 M255's 7.520 GPixel/s and 22.56 GTexel/s, respectively. This means tasks that rely on pixel throughput or texture sampling will favor the NVIDIA part.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins the Vulkan benchmark by a negligible 0.2% margin. This near-tie suggests that for gaming or applications built on the Vulkan API, the two GPUs are effectively interchangeable. The R5 M255's win is not a statement of superiority but rather a sign that its GCN 3.0 architecture handles this API slightly better, or at least no worse. The R5 M255 also offers a wider 128-bit memory bus compared to the MX130's 64-bit bus, though its DDR3 memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) yields lower bandwidth of 32.00 GB/s versus the MX130's 40.10 GB/s. In memory-bandwidth-sensitive scenarios, the MX130 still holds the edge despite the narrower bus.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL, the MX130 is the obvious choice. For those whose workloads are balanced across APIs, the R5 M255 remains competitive, though its overall average score of 4788 is 15% lower than the MX130's 5508, indicating that the Vulkan tie is an outlier rather than the norm.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130, with an average score of 5508 versus the AMD Radeon R5 M255's 4788, a difference of 720 points or roughly 15%.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the OpenCL test?

A: The MX130 scores 6102 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the R5 M255 scores 4650. This gives the MX130 a 31.2% advantage, the largest margin recorded between the two.

Q: Is the Vulkan test a decisive win for either GPU?

A: No. The R5 M255 scores 4925 against the MX130's 4914, a 0.2% difference. This is effectively a tie, with the AMD part holding a marginal edge.

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The MX130's GM108S chip has a density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter, while the R5 M255's Topaz chip has a density of 12.4 million transistors per square millimeter.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of DirectX?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), whereas the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). This means the R5 M255 offers compatibility with a more recent DirectX feature level.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The MX130 provides 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth from its 2 GB GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus. The R5 M255 provides 32.00 GB/s from 2 GB DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the MX130's faster memory technology yields higher bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge across nearly every core specification, starting with their chips. The MX130 uses the GM108S chip, while the R5 M255 uses the Topaz chip. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ significantly: the GM108S packs 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the Topaz chip contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. This gives the MX130 a higher transistor density of 13.2 million per mm² versus 12.4 million per mm² for the R5 M255.

Clock speeds also favor the NVIDIA part. The MX130 runs at a base clock of 1109 MHz and boosts to 1189 MHz, while the R5 M255 operates at 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost. Memory clocks are similarly lopsided: the MX130's GDDR5 memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), whereas the R5 M255's DDR3 memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The memory bus width differs as well, with the MX130 using a 64-bit interface and the R5 M255 using a 128-bit interface. Despite the wider bus, the R5 M255's slower memory yields lower bandwidth: 32.00 GB/s versus the MX130's 40.10 GB/s.

Compute rates further separate the two. The MX130 achieves a pixel rate of 9.512 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 28.54 GTexel/s, while the R5 M255 manages 7.520 GPixel/s and 22.56 GTexel/s. In terms of floating-point performance, the MX130 delivers 913.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the R5 M255 delivers 721.9 GFLOPS. The R5 M255 does list FP16 performance at 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1), while the MX130 has no recorded FP16 capability.

The power profile also differs. The MX130 has a TDP of 30 W and is described as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors. The R5 M255 has no TDP listed in the database. The bus interface favors the AMD part, which uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the MX130 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. The MX130 lists "Portable Device Dependent" for display outputs, while the R5 M255 has no display output information recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is built on the Maxwell architecture, a design known for efficient compute and power management. Its chip, GM108S, is a small, streamlined die that emphasizes clock speed and memory bandwidth efficiency. The R5 M255, by contrast, uses AMD's GCN 3.0 architecture with the Topaz chip. GCN 3.0 is a scalar-oriented design that prioritizes throughput across many cores, though the R5 M255's lower clocks limit its realized performance.

Both GPUs feature 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operations units, so the core counts are identical. The differences lie in how these units are clocked and fed. The MX130's higher clocks (1189 MHz boost versus 940 MHz boost) directly translate to its superior pixel and texture rates. The memory subsystem also reflects different design priorities: the MX130 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, favoring high bandwidth per pin, while the R5 M255 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, favoring a wider but slower interface. The result is that the MX130 achieves 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth despite its narrower bus, outperforming the R5 M255's 32.00 GB/s.

API support marks another distinction. The MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R5 M255's newer DirectX feature level (12_0 versus 11_0) suggests better compatibility with certain modern game features, though the Vulkan version on the MX130 is newer. The R5 M255 also records FP16 compute at the same rate as FP32 (721.9 GFLOPS), a capability not listed for the MX130.

Release timing separates the two as well. The MX130 was released on November 16, 2017, while the R5 M255 arrived earlier, on October 11, 2014. Both are end-of-life products. The R5 M255 lists its predecessor as "Solar System" and its successor as "Polaris Mobile," while the MX130 has no predecessor or successor recorded in the database. These architectural and generational differences explain why the MX130 excels in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, while the R5 M255 manages to hold its own in Vulkan despite its older design and lower raw throughput.