AMD Radeon R7 M445 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and AMD Radeon R7 M445 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions aimed at thin-and-light laptops, but the benchmark data reveals a decisive performance gap. The MX130 holds a 13.9% lead in the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 6102 against the R7 M445’s 5358. This advantage is reflected in their overall positions, with the MX130 sitting at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs and the R7 M445 at the 31st. While neither part is remotely competitive with modern gaming hardware, the MX130 establishes itself as the more capable of the two for general compute and GPU-accelerated tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is faster, scoring 6102 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M445’s 5358, a 13.9% advantage.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The R7 M445 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. The MX130 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 64-bit bus but delivers higher bandwidth at 40.10 GB/s.

Q: What are the architectural generations of these two chips?

A: The MX130 uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture (chip GM108S), while the R7 M445 uses AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture (chip Meso). Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process by TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count and larger die size?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M445 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 has 1,020 million transistors on a smaller 77 mm² die.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The MX130 has an average benchmark score of 5508, while the R7 M445 has an average score of 5358. The MX130’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, scores 5501, just 0.1% behind.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of DirectX?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M445 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), whereas the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), making the AMD part feature a later feature level.

Where Each One Wins

The data presents a clear single-winner scenario. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, with 6102 points versus 5358 for the AMD Radeon R7 M445. This 13.9% advantage translates into a higher average benchmark score of 5508 compared to 5358. In practical terms, the MX130 is the better choice for any application that leverages OpenCL for compute offload, such as video encoding, image processing, or physics simulations.

The AMD Radeon R7 M445 does not win any benchmark in this comparison. However, its specification sheet offers one area of nominal superiority: memory capacity. With 4 GB of VRAM, it doubles the 2 GB found on the MX130. This could theoretically allow larger textures or datasets to reside in local memory, but the lower bandwidth (32.00 GB/s vs. 40.10 GB/s) and slower clocks (base 780 MHz vs. 1109 MHz) likely negate this advantage in most real-world scenarios. The R7 M445 also supports a higher DirectX feature level (12_0 vs. 11_0), which may offer better API compatibility for certain modern titles, though the raw performance deficit remains the dominant factor.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The MX130 sits at the 32nd percentile, slightly above the R7 M445’s 31st percentile. The MX130’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, +0.1%) and AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, +0.5%), while the R7 M445 is closest to the Intel UHD Graphics P630 (5370, -0.2%) and NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322, +0.7%). This positioning shows the MX130 competing in a slightly higher performance tier, albeit by a narrow margin.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs stem from fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, a small, power-efficient design. It packs 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 M445 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture with the Meso chip, which is a larger, more complex design. It has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the Meso die is significantly larger at 125 mm² versus the MX130’s 77 mm², and it contains 1,550 million transistors compared to 1,020 million.

This size difference does not translate into performance. The MX130’s higher clock speeds (base 1109 MHz, boost 1189 MHz) versus the R7 M445’s (base 780 MHz, boost 920 MHz) allow it to achieve higher fill rates: 9.512 GPixel/s and 28.54 GTexel/s, compared to 7.360 GPixel/s and 18.40 GTexel/s for the AMD part. The MX130 also delivers more FP32 compute at 913.2 GFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS. Interestingly, the R7 M445 offers FP16 performance at 588.8 GFLOPS (1:1), while the MX130 does not list FP16 capability, making the AMD part potentially more flexible for mixed-precision workloads.

The memory subsystems also diverge. Both use a 64-bit bus, but the MX130 runs its GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) yielding 40.10 GB/s, while the R7 M445 runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) yielding only 32.00 GB/s. The MX130 connects via PCIe 3.0 x4, whereas the R7 M445 uses a wider PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, which could reduce transfer bottlenecks for the AMD part despite its lower raw bandwidth. Both are IGP solutions with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two GPUs are stark. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 operates at a base clock of 1109 MHz with a boost of 1189 MHz, while the AMD Radeon R7 M445 is significantly slower at 780 MHz base and 920 MHz boost. The MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs; the R7 M445 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This yields a 13.9% difference in OpenCL performance, mirroring the clock and unit count advantages.

Memory is another differentiator. The MX130 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 M445 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 64-bit bus, but the MX130’s higher memory clock (1253 MHz vs. 1000 MHz) gives it superior throughput. The MX130 also has a higher pixel rate (9.512 GPixel/s vs. 7.360 GPixel/s) and texture rate (28.54 GTexel/s vs. 18.40 GTexel/s), as well as higher FP32 compute (913.2 GFLOPS vs. 588.8 GFLOPS).

Power and interface specs differ as well. The MX130 has a TDP of 30 W, while the R7 M445’s TDP is not listed. The MX130 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface, while the R7 M445 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. In terms of API support, the MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the R7 M445 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 M445 also lists FP16 performance at 588.8 GFLOPS, a feature absent from the MX130’s specifications. Process node, foundry, and die size are also different: both are 28 nm TSMC, but the MX130 has a 77 mm² die with 1,020 million transistors, while the R7 M445 has a 125 mm² die with 1,550 million transistors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark result is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive victory for the NVIDIA GeForce MX130. The MX130 scores 6102, while the AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5358, producing a 13.9% delta in favor of NVIDIA. This margin is substantial for two GPUs in the same performance class, and it aligns with the architectural and clock speed differences detailed earlier.

Breaking down the score, the MX130’s advantage stems from its higher shader count (384 vs. 320), higher clocks (boost 1189 MHz vs. 920 MHz), and superior memory bandwidth (40.10 GB/s vs. 32.00 GB/s). These factors combine to give the MX130 a 55% advantage in FP32 compute throughput (913.2 GFLOPS vs. 588.8 GFLOPS) and a 55% advantage in texture fill rate (28.54 GTexel/s vs. 18.40 GTexel/s). The R7 M445’s larger memory pool (4 GB vs. 2 GB) and wider PCIe interface (x8 vs. x4) do not compensate for these compute deficits in the OpenCL workload.

The average benchmark scores corroborate this result. The MX130 averages 5508, with its nearest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (0.1% delta). The R7 M445 averages 5358, with its nearest rival being the Intel UHD Graphics P630 at 5370 (-0.2% delta). This places the MX130 roughly 2.8% above the R7 M445 in average performance, a gap that is consistent with the single-benchmark delta. The MX130 also sits at a higher percentile (32nd vs. 31st), confirming its slight but measurable edge in the broader GPU landscape. For any user prioritizing compute performance in a low-power mobile package, the data unequivocally favors the MX130.