AMD Radeon R7 M460 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two mobile GPUs along a single meaningful axis: OpenCL compute performance. The AMD Radeon R7 M460 takes the only recorded head-to-head win, scoring 6612 in Geekbench OpenCL against 6102 for the NVIDIA GeForce MX130, a margin of 8.4 percent. That result places the R7 M460 in the 38th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the MX130 sits lower at the 32nd percentile.

For applications that lean on OpenCL, the AMD part is the clear choice. Its average benchmark score of 6612 comes from that single OpenCL test, and it beats the MX130’s average of 5508 by a substantial 20 percent when comparing their overall recorded averages. The MX130, however, has an additional data point: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4914. That is the only test where the NVIDIA chip has a recorded result that the AMD part does not. So for Vulkan-based workloads, the MX130 at least has a measured baseline, but the R7 M460 has no Vulkan score in the database to compare against.

The wins break down as one for AMD, zero for NVIDIA in the direct head-to-head. The R7 M460 wins the OpenCL test outright. The MX130 does not win any recorded benchmark, but it does offer a second API path with its Vulkan score, which may matter for software that prefers that interface. In terms of raw compute throughput, the AMD chip’s FP32 rating of 786.4 GFLOPS trails the MX130’s 913.2 GFLOPS, but the recorded benchmark does not reflect that theoretical gap; the R7 M460 still posts a higher OpenCL score.

For general-purpose GPU compute tasks that use OpenCL, the R7 M460 is the winner in the database. For tasks that use Vulkan, the MX130 has a measurable score, but no direct comparison exists. The data does not show any other benchmark categories, so the analysis rests entirely on these two API results.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and different silicon designs. The AMD Radeon R7 M460 uses the Meso chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 uses the GM108S chip on Maxwell architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. Both are end-of-life mobile parts, but their internal designs differ significantly.

The AMD chip packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is smaller: 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, which works out to a higher density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The R7 M460 has a larger physical footprint and more transistors, but the MX130 fits more transistors per area.

Compute resources are identical in count: both have 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output pipelines. The clock speeds differ. The R7 M460 runs at a base of 730 MHz with a boost of 1024 MHz. The MX130 runs at a base of 1109 MHz and a boost of 1189 MHz, which is noticeably higher. That clock advantage shows up in pixel rate and texture rate: the MX130 hits 9.512 GPixel/s and 28.54 GTexel/s, versus 8.192 GPixel/s and 24.58 GTexel/s for the AMD part. The FP32 throughput also favors NVIDIA, 913.2 GFLOPS to 786.4 GFLOPS. The AMD chip lists FP16 at 786.4 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA part lists no FP16 figure.

Memory configurations are similar on the surface: both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. The clocks differ, though. The R7 M460’s memory runs at 1125 MHz with 4.5 Gbps effective, producing 36.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX130’s memory runs at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective, yielding 40.10 GB/s. That is an 11 percent bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA.

The bus interface also differs. The AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 3.0 x4, meaning the AMD chip has twice the PCIe lanes available for data transfer. Power characteristics are only recorded for the MX130, which lists a 30 W TDP and an IGP slot width with no power connectors. The R7 M460 has no TDP or slot width data in the database. API support varies: the R7 M460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part has a newer Vulkan version, but a lower DirectX feature level.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The AMD Radeon R7 M460 scores 6612, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 6102. That gives AMD an 8.4 percent win. This is a notable result because the MX130 has higher clock speeds, higher FP32 throughput, and more memory bandwidth, yet it still loses the OpenCL test. The data indicates that the R7 M460’s GCN 3.0 architecture translates its compute resources more efficiently in OpenCL workloads than the Maxwell-based MX130 does.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card gives additional context. The R7 M460’s closest competitors are the AMD Radeon HD 7730M at 6581 (0.5 percent slower), the Intel UHD Graphics P750 at 6554 (0.9 percent slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 at 6698 (1.3 percent faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M at 6513 (1.5 percent slower). The R7 M460 sits in a tight cluster where a single percentage point separates all four rivals. Its 6612 score is competitive with that group, landing just above the middle.

The MX130’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (0.1 percent slower), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483 (0.5 percent slower), the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537 (0.5 percent faster), and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 at 5467 (0.7 percent slower). The MX130’s average score of 5508 puts it right in the middle of that pack, with deltas under one percent in every direction.

The gap between the two cards is larger than the gap within their own rival clusters. The R7 M460’s 6612 is 8.4 percent above the MX130’s 6102 in the direct test, and 20 percent above the MX130’s average of 5508. The MX130’s Vulkan score of 4914 is its only other benchmark, and it is significantly lower than its OpenCL score, suggesting that Vulkan performance is weaker on that chip. Since the R7 M460 has no Vulkan score in the database, no cross-API comparison is possible.

The overall wins tally is one for AMD and zero for NVIDIA. The R7 M460 also holds a higher percentile rank, 38 versus 32. That percentile difference reflects the OpenCL result, since that is the only shared benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M460 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6612 versus the NVIDIA GeForce MX130’s 6102, a delta of 8.4 percent.

Q: How does the NVIDIA GeForce MX130’s average benchmark score compare to the AMD Radeon R7 M460’s?

A: The MX130’s average score is 5508, while the R7 M460’s average is 6612. That puts the AMD part roughly 20 percent higher on average.

Q: Does the MX130 have any benchmark category where it wins?

A: No, the MX130 does not win any recorded head-to-head benchmark. It does have a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4914, but the R7 M460 has no Vulkan score in the database, so no comparison exists.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes for these two GPUs?

A: The R7 M460 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. The MX130 has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Both are built on a 28 nm TSMC process.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 has a memory bandwidth of 40.10 GB/s, while the AMD Radeon R7 M460 has 36.00 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 compute performance?

A: The MX130 delivers 913.2 GFLOPS of FP32, while the R7 M460 delivers 786.4 GFLOPS. Despite this, the R7 M460 scores higher in the OpenCL benchmark.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for OpenCL compute tasks: the AMD Radeon R7 M460. Its 6612 OpenCL score beats the MX130’s 6102 by 8.4 percent, and its average benchmark of 6612 is 20 percent above the MX130’s 5508. The percentile ranks confirm this, with the R7 M460 at 38th versus the MX130 at 32nd. For any workload that relies on OpenCL, the AMD part is the better choice according to the recorded measurements.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 does have advantages in theoretical specifications. It runs at higher clocks, 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost, and delivers more memory bandwidth at 40.10 GB/s. Its FP32 throughput of 913.2 GFLOPS exceeds the AMD chip’s 786.4 GFLOPS. But those advantages do not translate into a benchmark win. The MX130’s only additional score, 4914 in Vulkan, is lower than its own OpenCL result, suggesting the chip does not scale well across APIs.

For users who prioritize OpenCL performance, the choice is the R7 M460. For users who need Vulkan support, the MX130 has a measured score, but the R7 M460 has no recorded Vulkan result, so it is impossible to say which is better. The MX130’s higher pixel rate, 9.512 GPixel/s versus 8.192 GPixel/s, and texture rate, 28.54 GTexel/s versus 24.58 GTexel/s, could matter for rasterization-heavy tasks, but no benchmark in the database measures that directly.

The nearest rival data reinforces the split. The R7 M460 competes with a group that includes the GeForce GT 1010 and GTX 670M, all within 1.5 percent of its score. The MX130 competes with a lower-scoring group, including the R7 M440 and Quadro M4000, all within 0.7 percent. The two cards are not in the same performance tier according to the database, despite similar hardware counts.

The production status for both is end-of-life, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP. The R7 M460 released in May 2016, while the MX130 released in November 2017. The MX130 is newer but does not outperform in the recorded benchmarks. The AMD chip’s PCIe 3.0 x8 interface also doubles the MX130’s x4 lanes, which may help in data transfer scenarios, though no benchmark tests that directly.

In summary, the database shows the AMD Radeon R7 M460 as the stronger OpenCL performer, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 as the higher-clocked, higher-bandwidth part that fails to convert its specs into benchmark wins. Buyers targeting compute workloads should favor the R7 M460. Buyers targeting Vulkan-specific software have only the MX130’s score to reference, but there is no evidence it outperforms the AMD part there either. The measured data favors AMD.