AMD Radeon R7 M340 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and AMD Radeon R7 M340 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different architectural generations, with the MX130 targeting a later release window. Benchmark data shows a split decision: the MX130 leads in Geekbench OpenCL by a significant margin, while the R7 M340 counters with a narrower victory in Geekbench Vulkan. Their overall percentile rankings place them within a few points of each other, indicating closely matched average performance despite their different design philosophies.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 has an average benchmark score of 5508, while the AMD Radeon R7 M340 scores 5063. This places the MX130 in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, compared to the R7 M340’s 30th percentile.

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

A: The MX130 scores 6102 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the R7 M340’s 4932, resulting in a 23.7% advantage for the NVIDIA part. This is the largest single-test delta between the two cards.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmark outright?

A: Yes, the R7 M340 takes the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 5193, beating the MX130’s 4914 by 5.4%. This gives the AMD card one win out of the two head-to-head tests.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card based on average score?

A: The MX130’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, with a delta of 0.1%. The R7 M340’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 240, which has a delta of 0% — an exact match in average score.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ in capacity and bandwidth?

A: Both cards have 2 GB of memory, but the MX130 uses GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s. The R7 M340 uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 16.00 GB/s — a substantial bandwidth deficit.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The AMD R7 M340’s Meso chip contains 1,550 million transistors, while the NVIDIA MX130’s GM108S has 1,020 million. Despite fewer transistors, the MX130 achieves a higher average benchmark score.

Where Each One Wins

The MX130 is the clear winner in compute-heavy workloads that rely on raw shader output and memory bandwidth. Its OpenCL score of 6102 versus 4932 for the R7 M340 demonstrates a 23.7% advantage, which is substantial for tasks like general-purpose GPU computing or older API-based rendering. The MX130 also has a higher pixel rate (9.512 GPixel/s vs 8.168 GPixel/s) and texture rate (28.54 GTexel/s vs 20.42 GTexel/s), making it better suited for fill-rate-limited scenarios.

The R7 M340 wins in Vulkan-based applications, posting a 5.4% higher score in that specific test (5193 vs 4914). This suggests its GCN 3.0 architecture handles the Vulkan API more efficiently, likely due to better driver optimization or hardware scheduling. The R7 M340 also has a higher transistor density-adjusted compute capability relative to its die size, though this does not translate into raw performance wins outside of Vulkan.

For users prioritizing OpenCL acceleration or games that favor NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, the MX130 is the stronger option. For those running Vulkan titles or applications that leverage that API, the R7 M340 offers a measurable edge, even if the overall average score is lower.

Architecture Differences

The MX130 is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture using the GM108S chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm². The R7 M340 uses AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture with the Meso chip, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with 1,550 million transistors spread across a larger 125 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 12.4 million per mm².

The memory architectures diverge significantly. The MX130 pairs its 2 GB frame buffer with GDDR5 memory running at an effective 5 Gbps, achieving 40.10 GB/s over a 64-bit bus. The R7 M340 uses DDR3 at 2 Gbps effective, capping bandwidth at 16.00 GB/s on the same 64-bit bus. This 2.5x bandwidth advantage for the MX130 directly impacts fill-rate and texture-heavy workloads.

Compute resources also differ. The MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The R7 M340 has fewer shading units (320) and TMUs (20), but matches the ROP count at 8. The MX130’s higher clock speeds (1109 MHz base, 1189 MHz boost) versus the R7 M340 (943 MHz base, 1021 MHz boost) further widen the gap in raw throughput.

API support shows a notable inversion: the MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M340 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD card has a more modern DirectX feature level, which may explain its Vulkan advantage, while the NVIDIA card offers a newer Vulkan version for broader compatibility.

Specification Differences

• Chip and Architecture: NVIDIA GM108S (Maxwell) vs AMD Meso (GCN 3.0)
• Transistors: 1,020 million vs 1,550 million
• Die Size: 77 mm² vs 125 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.2M / mm² vs 12.4M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1109 MHz vs 943 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1189 MHz vs 1021 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) vs 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective)
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs DDR3
• Memory Bandwidth: 40.10 GB/s vs 16.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 384 vs 320
• Texture Mapping Units: 24 vs 20
• Pixel Rate: 9.512 GPixel/s vs 8.168 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 28.54 GTexel/s vs 20.42 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 913.2 GFLOPS vs 653.4 GFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: Not specified vs 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 30 W vs not specified
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x4 vs PCIe 3.0 x8
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs 1.2.170
• Release Date: 2017-11-16 vs 2015-05-04

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the most decisive result. The MX130 scores 6102, which is 1170 points higher than the R7 M340’s 4932. This 23.7% delta is the largest margin in any comparison, and it aligns with the MX130’s superior memory bandwidth (40.10 GB/s vs 16.00 GB/s) and higher compute throughput (913.2 GFLOPS vs 653.4 GFLOPS). The MX130’s nearest rival in this range, the GTX 765M, scores 5501, meaning the MX130 outperforms it by 0.1% — the R7 M340 sits further back.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script. The R7 M340 scores 5193, edging out the MX130’s 4914 by 279 points, a 5.4% difference. This win is notable because the MX130 has a higher FP32 rating and faster memory, yet the AMD card’s GCN 3.0 architecture and DirectX 12 (12_0) feature level appear to provide better Vulkan execution. The R7 M340’s nearest rival, the Radeon R7 240, matches its average score exactly (5063), while the MX130’s Vulkan score of 4914 is lower than its own OpenCL result — suggesting API-specific inefficiencies on the NVIDIA side.

Comparing average scores, the MX130 leads 5508 to 5063, a difference of 445 points or roughly 8.8%. This aligns with the percentile ranking (32nd vs 30th). However, the head-to-head results show that the R7 M340 is not universally slower — its Vulkan win demonstrates that API choice can alter the outcome.

The Verdict

The data supports the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 as the overall faster GPU. It wins the OpenCL test by 23.7%, has a higher average benchmark score (5508 vs 5063), and delivers more than double the memory bandwidth (40.10 GB/s vs 16.00 GB/s). Its higher pixel rate (9.512 GPixel/s vs 8.168 GPixel/s) and texture rate (28.54 GTexel/s vs 20.42 GTexel/s) make it the better choice for traditional rasterization workloads and compute tasks that rely on memory throughput.

The AMD Radeon R7 M340 is the pick for Vulkan-specific scenarios. Its 5.4% lead in that test (5193 vs 4914) indicates that GCN 3.0 handles the API more efficiently, and its DirectX 12 (12_0) support is a generation ahead of the MX130’s 11_0 feature level. For users running Vulkan-based games or applications, the R7 M340 offers a tangible advantage despite its older release date and lower overall average score.

Buyers should also consider the architectural differences. The MX130 is more transistor-dense (13.2M / mm² vs 12.4M / mm²) and consumes 30 W TDP, making it a more power-efficient design per unit of performance. The R7 M340 has no specified TDP, but its larger die and slower clocks suggest less efficiency. With both cards being end-of-life, the choice ultimately comes down to API preference: the MX130 for OpenCL and general compute, the R7 M340 for Vulkan workloads.