AMD Radeon R5 M430 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce MX130 vs AMD Radeon R5 M430

The database records show a clear, though uneven, contest between these two end-of-life mobile graphics processors. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 are both designed for portable systems, but the benchmark data indicates that the MX130 holds a consistent, measurable lead across the recorded tests. The following analysis breaks down the recorded performance, architectural differences, and use-case implications based solely on the database entries.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the two recorded head-to-head benchmark tests, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 emerges victorious in both, but the margin of victory varies dramatically depending on the workload. The most decisive win for the MX130 comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where it scores 6102 points against the Radeon R5 M430's 5152 points. This represents an 18.4% performance advantage, a substantial gap that indicates the MX130 is significantly stronger in compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL acceleration.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, tells a much closer story. Here, the MX130 scores 4914 points while the Radeon R5 M430 scores 4884 points. The delta between them is only 0.6%, which is within the range of measurement noise. In Vulkan-specific workloads, these two GPUs are effectively neck-and-neck, with the MX130 holding only a razor-thin edge.

When looking at the broader average benchmark score, the MX130 posts 5508 points, while the Radeon R5 M430 averages 5018 points. This overall difference of roughly 9.8% aligns with the OpenCL result, suggesting that the MX130's advantage is most pronounced in general-purpose compute rather than in Vulkan-rendered graphics tasks. The MX130 also sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, whereas the Radeon R5 M430 rests at the 30th percentile, reflecting a modest but consistent positioning gap.

The nearest rivals for each GPU further contextualize these scores. The MX130's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, which averages 5501 points, a mere 0.1% behind. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483 points) and AMD FirePro M4000 (5537 points) are also within a percentage point, meaning the MX130 sits in a tightly contested cluster. The Radeon R5 M430, by contrast, is closest to the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034 points, 0.3% ahead) and the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063 points, 0.9% ahead), placing it in a slightly lower performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip, while the AMD Radeon R5 M430 relies on the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Jet chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so node differences do not play a role here, but the underlying designs diverge sharply.

The MX130 packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The Radeon R5 M430, in contrast, has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The MX130 is therefore both larger and denser, giving it more raw hardware to work with.

In terms of execution resources, the MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The Radeon R5 M430 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and also 8 raster output units. This means the MX130 has 20% more shaders and 20% more TMUs, which directly explains its higher compute throughput. The clock speeds reinforce this: the MX130 runs at a base of 1109 MHz and boosts to 1189 MHz, while the Radeon R5 M430 operates at a much lower 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. The combination of more units and higher clocks gives the MX130 a commanding lead in raw processing power.

Memory configuration is another point of divergence. The MX130 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R5 M430 offers 4 GB of DDR3 memory on the same 64-bit bus, but its bandwidth is only 16.00 GB/s, less than half of the MX130's. The MX130's memory operates at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the Radeon's memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). This bandwidth disparity is a critical factor in memory-intensive workloads, though the Radeon's larger capacity could be useful for holding larger datasets.

The bus interface also differs: the MX130 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the Radeon R5 M430 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The Radeon has double the lane count, which could matter for data transfer to and from the host CPU, but this advantage is likely outweighed by the MX130's superior memory bandwidth. In terms of API support, the MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon R5 M430 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Radeon has a slightly higher DirectX feature level (11_1 vs 11_0), while the MX130 has a newer Vulkan version.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 wins in most measurable scenarios. Its biggest advantage is in OpenCL compute, where the 18.4% lead over the Radeon R5 M430 makes it the clear choice for any application that relies on general-purpose GPU computing, such as video encoding, image processing, or scientific calculations. The MX130's higher pixel rate (9.512 GPixel/s vs 6.840 GPixel/s) and texture rate (28.54 GTexel/s vs 17.10 GTexel/s) further cement its superiority in fill-rate-bound tasks.

The Radeon R5 M430, however, does have one distinct advantage: memory capacity. With 4 GB of DDR3 versus the MX130's 2 GB of GDDR5, the Radeon can hold larger textures and datasets in local memory. This could be beneficial in scenarios where the workload exceeds the MX130's 2 GB limit, even if the Radeon's bandwidth is significantly lower. The Radeon also has a wider PCIe connection (x8 vs x4), which could reduce bottlenecks when transferring data between the GPU and system memory.

In Vulkan-based gaming or rendering, the 0.6% delta between the two GPUs suggests that real-world performance would be nearly indistinguishable. The MX130's win here is marginal, and the Radeon's slightly higher DirectX feature level (11_1) might offer better compatibility with certain legacy applications. For users who prioritize memory capacity over raw speed, the Radeon R5 M430 could be the more practical choice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 has an average benchmark score of 5508 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M430 averages 5018 points. The MX130 is about 9.8% ahead in this aggregate measure.

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

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the MX130 scores 6102 points versus 5152 points for the Radeon R5 M430, an 18.4% advantage for the NVIDIA GPU.

Q: Are these two GPUs close in Vulkan performance?

A: Yes, the Geekbench Vulkan scores are 4914 for the MX130 and 4884 for the Radeon R5 M430, a delta of only 0.6%, making them effectively equivalent in this test.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between them?

A: The MX130 provides 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR5 memory, while the Radeon R5 M430 offers 16.00 GB/s with DDR3 memory. The MX130 has more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The MX130 has 384 shading units, compared to 320 for the Radeon R5 M430. The MX130 also has 24 texture mapping units versus 20 for the Radeon.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The MX130 sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon R5 M430 is at the 30th percentile.

The Verdict

The data points decisively toward the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 as the stronger GPU. It wins both head-to-head tests, has a higher average score, and delivers superior compute, pixel, and texture rates. For any user whose primary concern is performance in OpenCL-based applications or general GPU acceleration, the MX130 is the clear pick. The 18.4% advantage in OpenCL is substantial and will translate to faster processing in real-world compute tasks. Its higher clock speeds, more shading units, and greater memory bandwidth give it a structural edge that the Radeon R5 M430 cannot overcome.

However, the Radeon R5 M430 is not without its niche. The 4 GB memory capacity is double that of the MX130, and in scenarios where memory footprint matters more than speed, such as holding very large textures or datasets that would otherwise spill over the 2 GB limit, the Radeon could be the more versatile option. The 0.6% Vulkan result also shows that in graphics-focused workloads, the two are nearly indistinguishable, meaning the Radeon's larger memory could tip the balance in specific gaming or rendering scenarios without a major performance penalty.

For the majority of users, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is the better choice. It offers higher raw performance, better bandwidth, and a stronger overall benchmark profile. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 should only be considered if the workload absolutely requires more than 2 GB of video memory, and even then, the bandwidth limitation of 16.00 GB/s will likely bottleneck performance. The MX130's wins in both recorded tests, combined with its superior architectural resources, make it the recommended option in this comparison.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the database records:

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce MX130 | AMD Radeon R5 M430 |

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

| Chip | GM108S | Jet |

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | GeForce MX (1xx) | Gem System (R5 M400) |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 56 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 1109 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1189 MHz | 855 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 40.10 GB/s | 16.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 320 |

| TMUs | 24 | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 9.512 GPixel/s | 6.840 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 28.54 GTexel/s | 17.10 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 913.2 GFLOPS | 547.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | (no value recorded) |

| Power Connectors | None | (no value recorded) |

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

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Predecessor | (none recorded) | Solar System |

| Successor | (none recorded) | Polaris Mobile |

| Release Date | 2017-11-16 | (none recorded) |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 6102 | 5152 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 4914 | 4884 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5508 | 5018 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 32 | 30 |