AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 and NVIDIA GeForce MX130 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions aimed at thin-and-light laptops, but the benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy between them. In the sole head-to-head benchmark available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the MX130 scores 6102 against the R5 M435’s 5859, a 4% advantage for the NVIDIA part. While both cards sit in the low-end percentile range — the R5 M435 at the 33rd percentile and the MX130 at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs — the MX130’s higher raw score does not automatically translate to a higher percentile, illustrating how the surrounding competitive field shifts between the two products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL compute test, where the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 posts a score of 6102, defeating the AMD Radeon R5 M435’s 5859 by a delta of 4%. That margin is modest in absolute terms, representing roughly 243 points, but it establishes a consistent pattern: the MX130 is the faster part in general-purpose compute workloads. This result aligns with the MX130’s higher FP32 throughput of 913.2 GFLOPS versus the R5 M435’s 659.2 GFLOPS, a 38.5% theoretical advantage that does not fully materialize in the benchmark due to real-world overheads and driver behavior.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The R5 M435’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M465, which scores 5841, putting the R5 M435 just 0.3% ahead. That is a statistical tie. However, the R5 M435 falls 1.2% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929) and 1.6% behind both the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955) and NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957). This places the R5 M435 in a crowded mid-pack of low-end mobile GPUs where 1-2% swings decide rankings. The MX130, by contrast, has a tighter cluster of rivals: it is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501), 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483), 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467), and 0.5% behind the AMD FirePro M4000 (5537). The MX130’s 6102 OpenCL score is notably higher than all of its listed nearest rivals, yet its average benchmark score of 5508 is dragged down by the additional Geekbench Vulkan score of 4914, which is not present for the R5 M435.

The MX130 also has a second benchmark result — Geekbench Vulkan at 4914 — while the R5 M435 has no Vulkan score listed. This matters because Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the MX130’s support for Vulkan 1.4 (versus the R5 M435’s Vulkan 1.2.170) suggests better forward compatibility. In OpenCL, the MX130 wins outright, but the R5 M435’s single benchmark score of 5859 is its average, whereas the MX130’s average (5508) is lower than its OpenCL score due to the Vulkan result. Thus, if a user only looks at average scores, the R5 M435 appears superior, but the head-to-head OpenCL test shows the opposite.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is the stronger choice for users prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL workloads. Its 4% lead over the R5 M435 in the head-to-head test is consistent with its higher shader count (384 vs 320), higher texture units (24 vs 20), and higher clock speeds (1189 MHz boost vs 1030 MHz boost). The MX130 also offers superior memory bandwidth at 40.10 GB/s versus 36.00 GB/s, which can benefit texture-heavy applications. For gaming or general GPU-accelerated tasks, the MX130’s higher pixel rate (9.512 GPixel/s vs 8.240 GPixel/s) and texture rate (28.54 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s) reinforce its advantage.

The R5 M435 is not without merit. It supports DirectX 12 (11_1) compared to the MX130’s DirectX 12 (11_0), which could matter for certain legacy or feature-specific titles. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface provides double the lanes of the MX130’s PCIe 3.0 x4, though this rarely bottlenecks mobile GPUs. The R5 M435 also has a higher transistor density (12.3M/mm² vs 13.2M/mm² for the MX130, though the MX130 has more transistors overall at 1,020 million vs 690 million). For users constrained by power, the R5 M435 has no listed TDP, while the MX130 is rated at 30 W — but the R5 M435’s lower clocks and smaller die likely consume less power, making it a plausible choice for ultra-portable designs where battery life trumps performance.

The MX130’s 32nd percentile ranking versus the R5 M435’s 33rd percentile is counterintuitive given the MX130’s higher head-to-head score. This occurs because the percentile is calculated against all GPUs, and the MX130’s average score (5508) is pulled down by its Vulkan result. The R5 M435’s single OpenCL score of 5859 gives it a higher average, thus a slightly better percentile. However, in any direct comparison, the MX130 wins. Therefore, the verdict is straightforward: choose the MX130 for better raw performance and modern API support (Vulkan 1.4). Choose the R5 M435 only if you specifically need DirectX 12 (11_1) or a wider PCIe bus, as these are the only areas where it demonstrably leads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 6102 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 4% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M435’s 5859.

Q: Does the R5 M435 have a higher benchmark percentile than the MX130?

A: Yes, the R5 M435 sits at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, while the MX130 is at the 32nd percentile, despite the MX130 winning the head-to-head test.

Q: What is the MX130’s average benchmark score?

A: The MX130 has an average benchmark score of 5508, which combines its OpenCL score of 6102 and its Vulkan score of 4914.

Q: How does the R5 M435 compare to its closest rival, the Radeon R7 M465?

A: The R5 M435 is 0.3% ahead of the Radeon R7 M465, which scores 5841, making the two effectively equal in performance.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each card?

A: The MX130 has a memory bandwidth of 40.10 GB/s, while the R5 M435 has 36.00 GB/s, both using 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 uses the Jet chip with 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 uses the GM108S chip with 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Clock speeds favor the MX130: its base clock is 1109 MHz and boost clock is 1189 MHz, versus 780 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost for the R5 M435. Memory clocks also differ, with the MX130 running at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and the R5 M435 at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). This yields a bandwidth advantage for the MX130 (40.10 GB/s vs 36.00 GB/s).

Compute rates reflect the hardware gap. The MX130 delivers 913.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, 28.54 GTexel/s texture fill rate, and 9.512 GPixel/s pixel rate. The R5 M435 manages 659.2 GFLOPS, 20.60 GTexel/s, and 8.240 GPixel/s respectively. The MX130’s transistor count is 1,020 million on a 77 mm² die, while the R5 M435 packs 690 million transistors into 56 mm². Both are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but the MX130 has a higher transistor density at 13.2M/mm² versus 12.3M/mm². The MX130 has a listed TDP of 30 W and no power connectors, while the R5 M435 has no TDP listed. The bus interface differs: the R5 M435 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the MX130 uses PCIe 3.0 x4.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture with a chip codenamed Jet, belonging to the Gem System (R5 M400) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 uses Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, part of the GeForce MX (1xx) generation. GCN 1.0 is AMD’s first-generation Graphics Core Next design, which emphasizes compute throughput with a unified shader array, while Maxwell is NVIDIA’s second-generation Kepler successor, optimized for power efficiency and higher clock speeds per watt.

Process nodes are identical — both use TSMC’s 28 nm process — but the designs diverge in transistor budget. The MX130’s 1,020 million transistors on 77 mm² give it a 47.8% transistor count advantage over the R5 M435’s 690 million on 56 mm². This allows the MX130 to pack 20% more shading units (384 vs 320) and 20% more TMUs (24 vs 20), while keeping the same 8 ROPs. The MX130’s higher clock speeds (1189 MHz boost vs 1030 MHz boost) further widen the performance gap, as Maxwell’s architecture is designed to scale clocks aggressively within a 30 W TDP envelope.

API support shows a split: the R5 M435 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. The MX130’s newer Vulkan version suggests better long-term driver support for modern games, while the R5 M435’s slightly higher DirectX feature level may benefit certain titles. Neither GPU has ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies. The R5 M435’s predecessor is listed as Solar System and its successor as Polaris Mobile, while the MX130 has no predecessor or successor listed. Release dates differ by about 18 months, with the R5 M435 launching in May 2016 and the MX130 in November 2017, though both are now end-of-life.