AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and the AMD Radeon R7 240 is defined by a single available benchmark result. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 6102 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 points. This yields a decisive 20.5% advantage for the MX130, making it the outright winner in the only head-to-head data point. No benchmark results in the fact pack show the R7 240 winning any test, as the wins tally stands at 1 for the MX130 and 0 for the R7 240.

Delving into the broader context, the MX130’s average benchmark score of 5508 places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 240’s average of 5063 lands in the 30th percentile. The delta between the two in the head-to-head test is substantial, but the percentile gap is narrow — just two percentage points — indicating that both cards occupy a similar low-tier performance bracket, even though the MX130 holds a clear edge in raw compute workloads. The MX130’s OpenCL score of 6102 is notably higher than its own average, suggesting that this workload plays to its strengths, whereas the R7 240’s 5063 score matches its average exactly, implying consistent performance across its tested scenarios.

Looking at the nearest rivals for the MX130, the data shows a tight cluster: the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537 (-0.5% relative to the MX130), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M scores 5501 (+0.1%), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 scores 5483 (+0.5%), and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 5467 (+0.7%). The MX130’s 5508 average sits almost exactly in the middle of this group, separated from each rival by less than one percent. This indicates that the MX130 is not an outlier in its class; rather, it is a mid-pack performer among similarly positioned mobile and low-power desktop parts.

For the R7 240, the nearest rivals paint a slightly different picture. The AMD Radeon R7 M340 matches its 5063 score exactly (0% delta), while the AMD FirePro W4170M trails at 5034 (-0.6%), the AMD Radeon R5 M430 comes in at 5018 (-0.9%), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4998 (-1.3%). The R7 240 leads this particular group, but the margins are razor-thin — at most 65 points or 1.3% separating the top from the bottom. This suggests that the R7 240 is at the upper edge of its immediate performance tier, but its absolute score remains well below the MX130’s output.

The single head-to-head result is unambiguous: the MX130 outperforms the R7 240 by a fifth in OpenCL compute. However, the absence of additional tests — such as Vulkan, where the MX130 has a score of 4914 but the R7 240 has no recorded result — limits the scope of the comparison. The MX130’s Vulkan score is actually lower than its OpenCL score, but without a corresponding R7 240 number, this cannot be used for direct comparison. The data available is sufficient to declare a winner, but not to explore nuanced workload-specific trade-offs.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is the clear choice for any user prioritizing raw compute performance. Its 20.5% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test is a substantial margin, and its higher average benchmark score of 5508 versus 5063 reinforces this dominance. The MX130 also holds a higher percentile ranking (32nd versus 30th), indicating that it sits slightly higher in the overall GPU hierarchy, even if both cards are firmly in the entry-level segment.

For users considering the AMD Radeon R7 240, the data does not present a compelling case based on performance. The R7 240’s only advantage appears to be its physical design: it is a single-slot card with a 168 mm length and 69 mm height, making it a compact desktop solution, whereas the MX130 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) designed for portable devices. The R7 240 also has a broader set of display outputs — 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA — while the MX130’s outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop implementation.

The R7 240 has a launch MSRP of 69 USD, but pricing considerations are secondary to the performance gap. In terms of architecture, the MX130 uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell design on a 28 nm process, while the R7 240 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 on the same 28 nm node. Both have 2 GB of memory, but the MX130 uses faster GDDR5 with a 64-bit bus, while the R7 240 uses DDR3 with a 128-bit bus. The MX130’s bandwidth of 40.10 GB/s exceeds the R7 240’s 28.80 GB/s, despite the narrower bus, which likely contributes to its performance lead.

Ultimately, the verdict is straightforward: the MX130 is the superior performer by a wide margin in the tested workload. The R7 240’s only redeeming qualities are its desktop form factor and fixed display connectivity, which may appeal to users building a low-power desktop system with legacy monitor support. For anyone measuring performance first, the MX130 wins decisively.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies from their respective manufacturers. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip, which is a 28 nm part fabricated by TSMC. It integrates 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm². The MX130 belongs to the GeForce MX (1xx) generation, a line aimed at thin-and-light laptops, and its IGP slot width reflects its intended integration into mobile platforms.

The AMD Radeon R7 240, in contrast, uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Oland chip, also on a 28 nm process from TSMC. It packs 950 million transistors on the same 77 mm² die size, yielding a slightly lower transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The R7 240 is part of the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation and is a discrete desktop card, as evidenced by its single-slot form factor and 168 mm length. Its predecessor is listed as Sea Islands, and its successor is Pirate Islands, placing it in a clear generational lineage.

The compute resources differ significantly. The MX130 features 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The MX130’s higher counts translate directly to its performance advantage: its pixel rate is 9.512 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s for the R7 240, and its texture rate is 28.54 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute throughput is 913.2 GFLOPS for the MX130, nearly double the R7 240’s 499.2 GFLOPS.

Clock speeds also favor the MX130. It runs at a base clock of 1109 MHz with a boost of 1189 MHz, while the R7 240 operates at 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. The MX130’s higher clocks, combined with its larger shader count, explain the substantial compute gap. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, keeping them in the traditional rasterization era.

API support shows minor differences: the MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX130’s newer Vulkan version may offer better driver optimization for modern titles, though no benchmark data confirms this. The R7 240’s DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level is slightly higher than the MX130’s (11_0), but this does not manifest in any performance metric.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystems present a key contrast. Both cards have 2 GB of VRAM, but the MX130 uses GDDR5 with a 64-bit bus, while the R7 240 uses DDR3 with a 128-bit bus. The MX130’s memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), whereas the R7 240 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Despite the narrower bus, the MX130 achieves 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth, outpacing the R7 240’s 28.80 GB/s. This is a critical difference — the GDDR5 memory is more efficient, and the bandwidth advantage likely contributes to the MX130’s superior benchmark performance.

In terms of physical specifications, the MX130 is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and a 30 W TDP. The R7 240 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, a 30 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The R7 240’s dimensions are 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the MX130 has no listed dimensions due to its integrated nature. The bus interface also differs: the MX130 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the R7 240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, giving the latter double the interface bandwidth — though this does not compensate for the MX130’s memory advantages in the tested workload.

The display outputs are another differentiator. The R7 240 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA, making it suitable for legacy monitors and multi-display setups. The MX130’s outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the GPU itself. The R7 240’s fixed output set is a practical advantage for desktop users, while the MX130 relies on the host device for connectivity.

Release dates are far apart: the MX130 was released on 2017-11-16, while the R7 240 came out on 2013-10-07 — a four-year gap that explains the architectural generational difference. Both are end-of-life products, so neither is a current purchase recommendation, but the MX130 is the more modern design. The R7 240 has a launch MSRP of 69 USD, while the MX130 has no listed launch MSRP. Neither card has a suggested PSU for the MX130, though the R7 240 lists 200 W.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 6102, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063, giving the MX130 a 20.5% lead in this single head-to-head benchmark.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The MX130 has an average benchmark score of 5508, placing it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. The R7 240 averages 5063, sitting in the 30th percentile. The MX130’s average is 445 points higher.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both feature 2 GB of VRAM. However, the MX130 uses GDDR5 with a 64-bit bus and 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 240 uses DDR3 with a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each card?

A: Both the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and the AMD Radeon R7 240 have a TDP of 30 W. Neither requires external power connectors.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX130 has a newer Vulkan version, while the R7 240 has a slightly higher DirectX 12 feature level.

Q: What is the physical form factor difference?

A: The MX130 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no slot width, designed for portable devices. The R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with fixed display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA.