AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, though uneven, victory for the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 across the two benchmark workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the MX130 scores 6102 against 4745 for the AMD Radeon R5 M335, a delta of 28.6%. This is the dominant win in the comparison, reflecting the substantial gap in raw compute throughput between the two parts. The MX130’s OpenCL result places it well ahead of the R5 M335, and the margin is large enough that it would be felt across any compute-oriented task.

The Vulkan result is far closer. The MX130 scores 4914, while the R5 M335 achieves 4758, a delta of just 3.3%. This narrow margin suggests that in API-level graphics workloads, the two GPUs are nearly interchangeable. The MX130 still wins, but the advantage is slim, and the data indicates that the R5 M335 is not outclassed in this particular test. The overall wins tally is 2 for the MX130 and 0 for the R5 M335, but the shape of the two results tells a more nuanced story: one decisive compute win, one marginal graphics win.

Looking at the broader database context, the MX130’s average benchmark score is 5508, placing it at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (0.1% ahead), the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537 (0.5% behind), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483 (0.5% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 at 5467 (0.7% ahead). This clustering shows that the MX130 sits in a tight performance band where small deltas separate it from its peers. The MX130 is effectively at parity with these mid-range mobile and workstation parts, with no single rival holding a meaningful lead.

The R5 M335’s average score is 4752, at the 28th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX at 4727 (0.5% ahead), the AMD Radeon R5 M255 at 4788 (0.7% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4791 (0.8% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro P400 at 4684 (1.5% ahead). The presence of a high-end desktop part like the RTX 3080 12 GB in this rival list is a quirk of the database’s scoring algorithm, but the deltas are all within 1.5%, meaning the R5 M335 is firmly anchored in a low-performance tier. It is not merely slower than the MX130; it is positioned among the weakest entries in the database.

When comparing the two directly, the MX130’s 28.6% OpenCL advantage is the headline number. That is not a marginal edge; it is a full tier of performance. The Vulkan delta of 3.3% is within the noise of daily driver variability. The data suggests that the MX130 is the stronger part for any workload that stresses raw compute, while the R5 M335 holds its ground only in the more specialized Vulkan path.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 wins with a score of 6102 against the AMD Radeon R5 M335’s 4745, a delta of 28.6%.

Q: Is the Vulkan performance gap as large as the OpenCL gap?

A: No. In Geekbench Vulkan, the MX130 scores 4914 and the R5 M335 scores 4758, a delta of only 3.3%. The Vulkan results are nearly even.

Q: How does the MX130 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The MX130’s average score of 5508 places it between the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537 (0.5% higher) and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 at 5467 (0.7% lower). It is essentially at parity with all four listed rivals, with deltas ranging from 0.1% to 0.7%.

Q: What is the R5 M335’s standing relative to other low-end GPUs?

A: The R5 M335’s average score is 4752. It trails the AMD Radeon R5 M255 by 0.7% and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB by 0.8%, while leading the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX by 0.5% and the NVIDIA Quadro P400 by 1.5%. All deltas are within 1.5%.

Q: Does the R5 M335 win any benchmark in this comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows 2 wins for the MX130 and 0 for the R5 M335.

Q: What is the percentile ranking difference between the two GPUs?

A: The MX130 sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M335 sits at the 28th percentile. The MX130 is ranked higher, though both are in the lower half of the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice for anyone comparing these two mobile GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is the superior part in both recorded benchmarks, with a decisive 28.6% lead in OpenCL and a smaller but still positive 3.3% lead in Vulkan. The MX130’s average score of 5508 is 756 points higher than the R5 M335’s 4752, a gap of roughly 16% in aggregate. That is a meaningful difference for any user who expects to run GPU-accelerated workloads.

The R5 M335’s only saving grace is the near-parity Vulkan result. If a workload is exclusively Vulkan-based and the system is otherwise identical, the R5 M335 would not feel dramatically slower. But the database does not show a single test where the R5 M335 wins, and its percentile rank of 28 against the MX130’s 32 confirms its lower standing.

For a user choosing between two laptops equipped with these GPUs, the MX130 is the clear pick. The OpenCL advantage alone justifies it, as that test represents a broad class of compute tasks. The Vulkan margin is small enough that it should not sway a decision, but it also does not favor the AMD part. The MX130 is the safer, faster choice in every measured dimension.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification. The MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The R5 M335 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The MX130 leads in shading units by 64 and in TMUs by 4, while ROP counts are identical at 8.

Pixel and texture rates follow the core counts. The MX130 achieves a pixel rate of 9.512 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 28.54 GTexel/s. The R5 M335 produces 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s. The MX130 is ahead by 1.272 GPixel/s and 7.94 GTexel/s, respectively. FP32 throughput also favors the MX130 at 913.2 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M335, a difference of 254 GFLOPS.

Memory configuration is a major separator. Both GPUs have 2 GB and a 64-bit bus, but the MX130 uses GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), yielding 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M335 uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding only 14.40 GB/s. That is a 25.70 GB/s bandwidth deficit for the AMD part, which directly impacts texture-heavy and compute-bound workloads.

The bus interface also differs: the MX130 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the R5 M335 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The R5 M335 has a wider interface, but the MX130’s faster memory and higher core counts more than compensate in the recorded benchmarks. The MX130 has a TDP of 30 W, while the R5 M335 has no TDP listed in the database. Both are marked as end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures are from different generations and vendors. The MX130 is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The R5 M335 is built on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Exo chip, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both use the same foundry and node, but the transistor counts differ: the MX130 packs 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the R5 M335 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The MX130 has a transistor density of 13.2M per mm², slightly higher than the R5 M335’s 12.3M per mm².

The MX130’s larger die and higher transistor count give it more raw resources, which explains its shading unit and TMU advantages. The Maxwell architecture is also newer than GCN 1.0, which dates the R5 M335’s design further back. The R5 M335’s predecessor is listed as Solar System and its successor as Polaris Mobile, while the MX130 has no predecessor or successor recorded in the database.

API support differs slightly. The MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R5 M335 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX130 has a newer Vulkan version, which may explain its slightly better Vulkan benchmark performance. The R5 M335’s DirectX 12 feature level of 11_1 is marginally higher than the MX130’s 11_0, but this does not translate into a benchmark win.

Both GPUs have no ray tracing cores, no tensor cores, and no FP16 support recorded. Both have portable device dependent display outputs and no power connectors. The release dates are far apart: the MX130 launched on 2017-11-16, while the R5 M335 launched on 2015-10-20. The MX130 is a newer part by roughly two years, which is consistent with its architectural advantages. Neither GPU has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.