AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce MX130 vs AMD Radeon R7 M260X

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and AMD Radeon R7 M260X are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions aimed at thin-and-light laptops, but the data shows a clear overall winner. The MX130 wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons, holding a 7.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL (6102 vs 5690) and a 6.1% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan (4914 vs 4631). While the R7 M260X counters with a wider 128-bit memory bus and higher raw bandwidth, the MX130's architectural efficiency and higher clock speeds translate into superior real-world scores. For users prioritizing raw compute performance in legacy titles or OpenCL workloads, the MX130 is the pick; the R7 M260X only makes sense if memory bandwidth matters more than overall throughput, which the benchmarks suggest is rarely the case.

The Verdict

The MX130 is the straightforward choice for anyone comparing these two directly. It wins both available benchmarks, sits at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs, and averages 5508 across tests—347 points above the R7 M260X's 5161 average. The R7 M260X, at the 30th percentile, is not far behind in percentile terms, but the gap in raw scores is consistent across both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. For a user with a laptop already containing one of these chips, there is no upgrade path here; but if choosing between two used systems, the MX130 delivers measurably more compute performance per frame of GPU work. The R7 M260X's only statistical advantage is its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth versus the MX130's 40.10 GB/s, yet that 59.6% bandwidth lead fails to translate into a single benchmark win. The verdict is straightforward: the MX130 wins on compute, the R7 M260X wins on paper specs that don't materialize in scores.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages, and that explains much of the performance gap. The MX130 is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip fabricated on a 28 nm TSMC process. It packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The R7 M260X uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, with the Opal chip also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with 950 million transistors in the same 77 mm² die, for a slightly lower 12.3M per mm² density. Both have identical core counts—384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units—so the difference comes down to clock speeds and architectural efficiency. The MX130 runs at a 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost, while the R7 M260X lags at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. That clock advantage is enormous: the MX130's boost is 66.3% higher than the R7 M260X's. Consequently, the MX130 achieves 913.2 GFLOPS FP32 performance versus the R7 M260X's 549.1 GFLOPS, a 66.3% difference. Pixel rate and texture rate follow suit: 9.512 GPixel/s vs 5.720 GPixel/s, and 28.54 GTexel/s vs 17.16 GTexel/s. The R7 M260X does support newer DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the MX130's 12 (11_0), but both support OpenGL 4.6, and the MX130 has a newer Vulkan 1.4 versus the R7 M260X's 1.2.170. The R7 M260X also uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface versus the MX130's x4, but neither is bandwidth-starved in practice for these workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark results tell a consistent story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the MX130 scores 6102 against the R7 M260X's 5690, a 7.2% advantage. This test typically stresses raw compute throughput, and the MX130's higher clocks and Maxwell efficiency pay off directly. The 913.2 GFLOPS FP32 figure versus 549.1 GFLOPS suggests the MX130 should win by a larger margin, but the R7 M260X's 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth helps it close some of the gap in memory-bound workloads. Still, 7.2% is a clear win. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows slightly to 6.1%, with scores of 4914 and 4631. Vulkan workloads often benefit from lower-level hardware access, and the MX130's newer Vulkan 1.4 support may contribute to its edge, though the R7 M260X's 1.2.170 is not outdated. The MX130's relative performance also looks better when placed among rivals. Its nearest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, scores 5501, just 0.1% below the MX130's 5508 average. The AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537, which is 0.5% higher. The R7 M260X, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154, 0.1% lower) and the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5063, 1.9% lower). Neither GPU is a performance king—both sit in the bottom third of all GPUs—but the MX130 consistently outperforms its direct rival by a meaningful single-digit percentage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 wins Geekbench OpenCL by 7.2%, scoring 6102 versus the R7 M260X's 5690.

Q: Does the R7 M260X have any memory advantage?

A: Yes, it has a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth versus the MX130's 64-bit bus at 40.10 GB/s, but that advantage does not produce a benchmark win.

Q: Are the core counts identical?

A: Yes, both GPUs have 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, but the MX130 runs at much higher clocks (1109/1189 MHz vs 620/715 MHz).

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The R7 M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the MX130's 12 (11_0), but the MX130 has Vulkan 1.4 versus the R7 M260X's 1.2.170; both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The MX130's average score of 5508 is 0.1% above the GTX 765M (5501), while the R7 M260X's 5161 is 0.1% above the Quadro K3100M (5154) and 1.9% above the R7 240 (5063).

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The MX130 delivers 913.2 GFLOPS versus the R7 M260X's 549.1 GFLOPS, a 66.3% advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The MX130 wins in every measurable benchmark category available. It takes the OpenCL test by 7.2% and the Vulkan test by 6.1%, giving it a clean 2-0 sweep in head-to-head comparisons. Its higher clock speeds (1189 MHz boost vs 715 MHz) and greater FP32 throughput (913.2 GFLOPS vs 549.1 GFLOPS) make it the better choice for any compute-heavy application, whether that's OpenCL-accelerated video encoding, Vulkan-based games, or general GPU compute tasks. The MX130's 40.10 GB/s bandwidth is lower, but the benchmarks show that its architectural efficiency compensates. It also holds a slight edge in transistor density (13.2M vs 12.3M per mm²), suggesting a more optimized design.

The R7 M260X's wins are purely on paper. Its 128-bit memory bus doubles the MX130's 64-bit bus, and its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is 59.6% higher. For workloads that are purely memory-bandwidth-bound—theoretical scenarios like large texture streaming or certain data-parallel operations—the R7 M260X has a hardware advantage that the current benchmarks do not capture. Its 1024 MB memory is half the MX130's 2 GB, though, so the bandwidth advantage comes with a capacity penalty. The R7 M260X also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the MX130's 12 (11_0), which could matter for specific legacy titles that use 11_1 features, but the MX130's newer Vulkan support (1.4 vs 1.2.170) is more forward-looking. In practice, the R7 M260X is the pick only if you have a workload that saturates memory bandwidth without exceeding 1 GB of VRAM and does not benefit from the MX130's higher compute throughput—a narrow niche.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification except their core counts and manufacturing process. The MX130 uses the GM108S chip on Maxwell architecture, while the R7 M260X uses the Opal chip on GCN 1.0. Both are 28 nm TSMC parts, but the MX130 has more transistors (1,020 million vs 950 million) at a higher density (13.2M vs 12.3M per mm²). Clock speeds diverge sharply: the MX130 runs at 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost, versus the R7 M260X's 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. Memory configurations are also different—the MX130 has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus at 40.10 GB/s, while the R7 M260X has 1024 MB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus at 64.00 GB/s. The MX130's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), the R7 M260X's at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Compute rates follow the clock gap: the MX130 achieves 913.2 GFLOPS FP32, 9.512 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 28.54 GTexel/s texture rate, versus the R7 M260X's 549.1 GFLOPS, 5.720 GPixel/s, and 17.16 GTexel/s. The MX130 is rated at 30 W TDP; the R7 M260X has no TDP listed. The MX130 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, the R7 M260X a PCIe 3.0 x8. Both have no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the R7 M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Release dates also differ significantly: the MX130 launched on 2017-11-16, while the R7 M260X launched on 2015-12-05. Both are end-of-life, with the R7 M260X listing "Solar System" as a predecessor and "Polaris Mobile" as a successor.