AMD Radeon R6 M255DX vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 has an average benchmark score of 5508, which places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX has an average score of 4867, placing it in the 28th percentile. The MX130 leads by 641 points, a gap of roughly 13%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 4914, while the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX scores 4867. The MX130 wins this head-to-head matchup by 47 points, a delta of 1%.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 features 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX uses System Shared memory, with its bandwidth described as System Dependent, so it relies on the host system's memory rather than dedicated VRAM.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 has 384 shading units, whereas the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX has 320 shading units. This gives the MX130 a 64-unit advantage, which contributes to its higher FP32 throughput of 913.2 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS for the AMD part.

Q: What is the release timeline for these two products?

A: The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX was released on January 6, 2014, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 came later on November 16, 2017. Both are now marked as End-of-life in the database.

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

A: The MX130's average score of 5508 is just 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501), 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483), and 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467). It trails the AMD FirePro M4000 (5537) by 0.5%.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families and different generations of mobile graphics. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM108S chip, while the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Jet chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but their underlying designs differ substantially.

The transistor counts reveal a significant gap in complexity. The MX130 packs 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The R6 M255DX has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving it a density of 12.3M per mm². The NVIDIA part is both larger and denser, which correlates with its higher compute resources.

Clock speeds also diverge. The MX130 runs at a base clock of 1109 MHz with a boost of 1189 MHz. The AMD part operates at a base of 780 MHz and boosts to 855 MHz. This clock advantage, combined with more shading units, explains the large FP32 performance gap: 913.2 GFLOPS for the MX130 versus 547.2 GFLOPS for the R6 M255DX.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The MX130 uses dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit interface with 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The R6 M255DX has no dedicated VRAM at all; it uses System Shared memory, making its memory bandwidth dependent on the host system's configuration. This is a fundamental difference in how the two GPUs access data.

The API support also differs. The MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R6 M255DX supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both are IGP-class parts with Portable Device Dependent display outputs, but the MX130 connects via PCIe 3.0 x4, while the AMD part uses an IGP bus interface. The MX130 has a rated TDP of 30 W, while the R6 M255DX has no TDP listed in the database.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points clearly toward the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 as the stronger GPU. Its average benchmark score of 5508 versus 4867 for the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX represents a 641-point lead, and it wins the only direct head-to-head comparison in the database, the Geekbench Vulkan test, by 1%. The MX130 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 32 versus 28.

For users who need dedicated graphics memory, the MX130 is the obvious choice. Its 2 GB GDDR5 configuration with 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth provides a self-contained memory subsystem, whereas the R6 M255DX depends entirely on shared system memory. The MX130's higher clock speeds, more shading units, and greater FP32 throughput all reinforce this conclusion.

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX is a much older part, released in January 2014 versus November 2017 for the MX130. It offers lower raw compute, fewer shading units, and no dedicated VRAM. While it does support DirectX 12 (11_1) compared to the MX130's DirectX 12 (11_0), this minor API difference does not offset the substantial performance gap.

In short, the data supports choosing the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 for any workload that benefits from higher compute throughput and dedicated memory. The R6 M255DX remains a legacy part whose primary advantage is simply that it exists in older systems.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the recorded data.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX130 | AMD Radeon R6 M255DX |

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

| Chip | GM108S | Jet |

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | GeForce MX (1xx) | Gem System Hybrid (Rx M200) |

| 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 | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 40.10 GB/s | System Dependent |

| 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 | Not listed |

| Power Connectors | None | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | IGP |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2017-11-16 | 2014-01-06 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: the Geekbench Vulkan test. In that test, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 4914, and the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX scores 4867. The MX130 wins by 47 points, a delta of 1%. This is a narrow margin, suggesting that in Vulkan workloads the two GPUs perform at a similar level despite the MX130's other advantages.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the gap widens considerably. The MX130 averages 5508 across its recorded benchmarks, while the R6 M255DX averages 4867. This 641-point difference represents approximately a 13% advantage for the NVIDIA part. The MX130 also has two recorded benchmark entries (Geekbench OpenCL at 6102 and Geekbench Vulkan at 4914), while the AMD part has only one (Geekbench Vulkan at 4867).

The MX130's OpenCL score of 6102 is notably higher than its Vulkan score, indicating that its compute performance is particularly strong in OpenCL workloads. The R6 M255DX has no OpenCL score recorded in the database, so no direct comparison is possible for that API.

When examining the nearest rivals for each GPU, the MX130 sits in a competitive cluster. Its average score of 5508 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501, with a delta of just 0.1%. It is also within 0.7% of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 at 5467 and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483. The AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537 edges it out by 0.5%.

The R6 M255DX, by contrast, sits in a lower performance cluster. Its average of 4867 is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M at 4855 and 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX at 4844. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 at 4893 by 0.5% and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB at 4901 by 0.7%. This places the R6 M255DX in a distinctly lower tier than the MX130.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 wins in the majority of measurable categories. It has a higher average benchmark score, a higher percentile ranking, and wins the only direct head-to-head test. Its compute specifications are uniformly stronger: 384 shading units versus 320, 24 TMUs versus 20, and FP32 throughput of 913.2 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS. The pixel rate of 9.512 GPixel/s and texture rate of 28.54 GTexel/s both exceed the AMD part's 6.840 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s by substantial margins.

The MX130 also wins decisively on memory. Its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 pool with 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth is a clear advantage over the R6 M255DX's System Shared memory, which has no fixed bandwidth figure and depends entirely on the host system. For applications that are sensitive to memory bandwidth, this difference is likely to be significant.

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX has few advantages in the recorded data. It supports DirectX 12 (11_1) compared to the MX130's DirectX 12 (11_0), which may be relevant for specific applications that require the newer feature level. Its Vulkan API version is 1.2.170, while the MX130 supports Vulkan 1.4. The R6 M255DX is also a smaller chip at 56 mm² with fewer transistors, which could imply lower manufacturing cost, but no pricing data is available to confirm this.

In terms of use cases, the MX130 is the better choice for tasks that demand raw compute throughput, such as OpenCL-accelerated workloads, where its score of 6102 indicates strong performance. It is also preferable for gaming or rendering scenarios where dedicated VRAM prevents contention with the system memory. The R6 M255DX may suffice for very light workloads in legacy systems, but the data shows it trails the MX130 by double digits in average score and offers no dedicated memory subsystem to fall back on.