AMD Radeon RX 6400 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 occupy very different corners of the mobile GPU market, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. The RX 6400 is a discrete desktop-class part aimed at modern gaming, while the MX130 is an older, low-power laptop chip designed for basic acceleration. The recorded scores show a decisive performance hierarchy, but the MX130 still has a role for specific, low-demand tasks. This analysis draws solely on the database measurements to break down where each card stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct head-to-head comparisons between these cards, and the results are lopsided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 32,011 points against the MX130's 6,102 points. That is a delta of 424.6% in favor of the AMD card. This is not a marginal lead; it is a multi-generational leap in raw compute throughput. The RX 6400's shading units and memory bandwidth simply overwhelm the older Maxwell-based part.

The second head-to-head test, Geekbench Vulkan, tells a similar story. The RX 6400 records 16,372 points, while the MX130 manages 4,914 points. The delta here is 233.2%. Vulkan is a low-level API that exposes hardware capabilities more directly, and the results indicate that the RX 6400 can feed its GPU cores far more efficiently. The MX130's score is roughly one-third of the AMD card's output, which aligns with its smaller shader count and slower memory.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the RX 6400 holds an average benchmark score of 6,001 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The MX130 has an average score of 5,508, putting it in the 32nd percentile. While the percentile gap appears small, the head-to-head deltas are massive. The average score for the RX 6400 is skewed by its weaker DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 results, which are legacy tests. The MX130 has no recorded scores for those specific tests, so its average relies on the two Geekbench runs where it loses heavily.

The nearest rivals in the database for each card further contextualize the performance. The RX 6400 sits within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, the AMD FirePro W4100, and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M. This suggests the RX 6400's compute power is comparable to a mid-range gaming laptop GPU from a previous generation. The MX130, by contrast, is within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, AMD Radeon R7 M440, AMD FirePro M4000, and NVIDIA Quadro M4000. These are all low-end or older mobile parts, confirming that the MX130 was never designed for heavy lifting.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is dramatically faster, scoring 32,011 versus 6,102 for the MX130. This represents a 424.6% advantage.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The RX 6400 wins again, posting 16,372 points against the MX130's 4,914 points, a 233.2% lead.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 6400 has a bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s using 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The MX130 has 40.10 GB/s using 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 64-bit bus width.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The RX 6400 was released on January 18, 2022, while the MX130 came out on November 16, 2017.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RX 6400 has a pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s, while the MX130 is limited to 9.512 GPixel/s. This is a major difference for resolutions above 1080p.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the MX130 wins?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins both tests. The MX130 has no winning entries in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6400 wins in every scenario where you need actual graphics horsepower. Its 3.565 TFLOPS of FP32 performance dwarfs the MX130's 913.2 GFLOPS, making it suitable for modern games at 1080p with reduced settings, light content creation, and any compute workload that uses OpenCL or Vulkan. The 12 ray tracing cores on the RX 6400 also give it access to hardware-accelerated ray tracing effects in supported titles, a feature the MX130 lacks entirely. The 32 ROPs and 48 TMUs on the AMD card allow it to handle higher resolutions and texture-heavy scenes without stalling.

The MX130's wins are narrower and situational. Its 30 W TDP is lower than the RX 6400's 53 W, which makes it more suited for ultra-thin laptops where thermals and battery life are the primary constraints. It is an integrated graphics package (IGP) with no power connectors, so it drops into existing motherboard designs without extra wiring. For basic tasks like video playback, office productivity, or running legacy DirectX 9/10 applications, the MX130 consumes less power and generates less heat. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory is enough for framebuffer-only workloads, but it will hit the 40.10 GB/s bandwidth ceiling quickly in any 3D application.

In terms of raw benchmark averages, the RX 6400 is ahead by 493 points (6,001 versus 5,508), but the real story is the head-to-head deltas. The MX130's nearest rivals all have average scores within 0.7% of its own, meaning it is firmly planted in the entry-level tier. The RX 6400, despite its end-of-life status, punches well above that tier in compute-heavy tests.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every measurable specification. The RX 6400 uses a 6 nm process node from TSMC, while the MX130 uses a 28 nm node from the same foundry. This process gap alone explains much of the efficiency and performance difference. The RX 6400 packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, giving a density of 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The MX130 has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, for a density of 13.2 million per square millimeter.

Clock speeds also favor the AMD card. The RX 6400 has a base clock of 1923 MHz and a boost clock of 2321 MHz, with a game clock of 2039 MHz. The MX130 runs at 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for the RX 6400 versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the MX130. Memory capacity is 4 GB versus 2 GB, and the type is GDDR6 versus GDDR5. Bandwidth is 128.0 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s.

The compute units are also very different. The RX 6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The RX 6400 has 12 ray tracing cores; the MX130 has none. The RX 6400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MX130 is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The RX 6400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface, while the MX130 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. Display outputs differ as well: the RX 6400 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the MX130 is listed as portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The RX 6400 is built on RDNA 2.0, AMD's second-generation RDNA architecture, which introduces hardware ray tracing and a redesigned compute unit layout. This architecture is optimized for high clock speeds and efficient power delivery, which is why the RX 6400 can hit 2321 MHz boost clocks while drawing only 53 W. The 12 dedicated ray tracing cores are a significant feature absent from the MX130, enabling effects like reflections and shadows in DirectX 12 Ultimate titles.

The MX130 is based on Maxwell, NVIDIA's architecture from 2014. Maxwell was designed for the 28 nm process and focused on power efficiency for its time, but it lacks modern features like ray tracing, variable rate shading, or mesh shaders. Its DirectX support is listed as 12 (11_0), meaning it does not fully support the DirectX 12_2 feature set that the RX 6400 offers. The MX130 also has no FP16 support listed, whereas the RX 6400 delivers 7.130 TFLOPS of FP16 performance via a 2:1 rate. This makes the RX 6400 better suited for workloads that can use half-precision math, such as certain AI inference tasks.

The transistor count difference is stark: 5,400 million versus 1,020 million. Combined with the 6 nm versus 28 nm process, the RX 6400 has a compute density that the MX130 cannot match. The RX 6400 also supports Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6, matching the MX130's API list, but the underlying hardware capabilities are far more advanced. The MX130's 8 ROPs limit its pixel output to 9.512 GPixel/s, which is less than one-seventh of the RX 6400's 74.27 GPixel/s. This means the MX130 will struggle with any modern game that requires high fill rates, even at low resolutions.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: if you have a workload that stresses the GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the only viable choice. Its 424.6% lead in OpenCL and 233.2% lead in Vulkan leave no room for debate. The nearest rivals to the RX 6400, such as the GTX 770M, are still far faster than the MX130's closest competitors, confirming that the MX130 is several tiers below.

Choose the RX 6400 for gaming, 3D rendering, video encoding, or any compute task that uses OpenCL or Vulkan. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory and 128.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for 1080p gaming with moderate settings, and the 12 ray tracing cores provide a path to modern visual effects. The 53 W TDP is manageable for a desktop build with a 250 W PSU.

Choose the MX130 only if your primary concern is power draw and you have no 3D performance requirements. Its 30 W TDP makes it suitable for fanless or ultra-portable designs, and its IGP form factor means it can be integrated into a motherboard without a discrete card slot. For basic 2D acceleration, video playback, or legacy DirectX 9/10 applications, the MX130 will suffice. But for any modern workload, the RX 6400 is the clear winner, and the benchmark data shows that the MX130 simply cannot compete.