Intel UHD Graphics P630 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

NVIDIA’s GeForce MX130 and Intel’s UHD Graphics P630 are both end-of-life integrated-class parts, but they target very different workloads. The MX130 is a discrete GPU built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, while the P630 is Intel’s Generation 9.5 integrated graphics from the Comet Lake era. Benchmark data shows a split decision: the MX130 dominates in OpenCL compute, while the P630 takes the Vulkan crown. Below is a detailed breakdown of their performance, use cases, and architectural differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The GeForce MX130 and UHD Graphics P630 each claim one victory in the two available Geekbench tests, but the margins are far from symmetrical. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the MX130 scores 6102, which is 19.4% higher than the P630’s 5111. That is a substantial lead for the NVIDIA part, reflecting its dedicated GDDR5 memory and higher raw compute throughput. The MX130’s FP32 performance is listed at 913.2 GFLOPS, nearly double the P630’s 460.8 GFLOPS, which explains the wide OpenCL gap.

The tables turn in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 posts a score of 5628, beating the MX130’s 4914 by 12.7%. This is a significant reversal, as the P630’s Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score (5628 vs 5111), while the MX130 drops from 6102 in OpenCL to 4914 in Vulkan. The P630’s advantage in this API likely stems from its newer DirectX 12 (12_1) support and Generation 9.5 architecture, which may handle modern graphics APIs more efficiently despite lower raw specs.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the MX130 leads overall with 5508 versus the P630’s 5370, a difference of about 2.6%. This places both GPUs in nearly the same percentile bracket: the MX130 sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the P630 is just one point behind at the 31st percentile. In terms of closest rivals, the MX130’s nearest competitor is the AMD FirePro M4000, which scores 5537, just 0.5% higher, while the GeForce GTX 765M is nearly tied at 5501 (0.1% lower). The P630’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M365X at 5416, which is 0.8% faster, and the Radeon R7 M445 at 5358, which is 0.2% slower.

The per-test deltas are more telling than the averages. The MX130’s 19.4% OpenCL win is a decisive margin, while the P630’s 12.7% Vulkan victory is also substantial. Neither GPU is a clear overall winner; instead, the data suggests they are optimized for different software environments. The MX130 is clearly the stronger compute-oriented part, while the P630 holds its own in modern graphics API workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce MX130 is the better choice for compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL. Its 19.4% lead in that benchmark, combined with 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units, makes it suitable for content creation, video encoding, or any application that offloads parallel math to the GPU. The MX130’s dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth also gives it a distinct advantage over the P630’s system-shared memory, which is “System Dependent” in bandwidth. For users running OpenCL-based acceleration in older software, the MX130 is the clear pick.

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins in Vulkan-based scenarios, which are increasingly common in modern games and 3D applications. Its 12.7% Vulkan lead suggests better driver optimization or architectural efficiency for this API. The P630 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a higher feature level than the MX130’s DirectX 12 (11_0), which could matter for newer titles that use advanced DX12 features. Additionally, the P630 has a higher texture rate (28.80 GTexel/s) than the MX130 (28.54 GTexel/s), despite having fewer shading units (192 vs 384). This indicates the Intel part is better balanced for certain graphics workloads.

In practical terms, the MX130 is suited for lightweight laptops where a discrete GPU is needed for OpenCL compute or older DirectX 11 games. The P630, being integrated into a Comet Lake processor, is more of a general-purpose solution for everyday tasks, with Vulkan support making it viable for modern indie games or eSports titles. The P630’s lower TDP of 15 W (versus the MX130’s 30 W) also makes it more power-efficient, though the MX130’s higher power budget enables its superior compute performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 has an average benchmark score of 5508, which is 2.6% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics P630’s 5370.

Q: How much faster is the MX130 in OpenCL?

A: The MX130 scores 6102 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 19.4% higher than the P630’s 5111.

Q: Does the Intel P630 ever beat the NVIDIA MX130?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Vulkan, the P630 scores 5628, beating the MX130’s 4914 by 12.7%.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each GPU?

A: The MX130’s nearest rival is the AMD FirePro M4000 (0.5% faster), while the P630’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (0.8% faster).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The MX130 has 384 shading units, double the P630’s 192.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The MX130 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, while the P630 uses system-shared memory with bandwidth that is system dependent.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in almost every measurable specification. The MX130 uses a 28 nm process node from TSMC, while the P630 uses Intel’s 14 nm+++ process. The MX130 has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, whereas the P630’s transistor count and die size are not listed. Clock speeds are starkly different: the MX130 runs at 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost, while the P630 has a 350 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost.

Memory is a major differentiator. The MX130 has 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 64-bit bus and 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. The P630 uses system-shared memory, with no fixed size, type, or bus width, and bandwidth that is system dependent. The MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the P630 has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. Pixel rates are 9.512 GPixel/s for the MX130 versus 3.600 GPixel/s for the P630, though texture rates are nearly identical (28.54 vs 28.80 GTexel/s).

FP32 performance is 913.2 GFLOPS for the MX130 and 460.8 GFLOPS for the P630. The P630 offers FP16 at 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the MX130 does not list FP16. Power consumption is 30 W for the MX130 and 15 W for the P630. The MX130 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface, while the P630 uses a Ring Bus. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the MX130 and motherboard dependent for the P630.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The MX130 is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip, and belongs to the GeForce MX (1xx) generation. The P630 uses Intel’s Generation 9.5 architecture, with the Comet Lake GT2 chip, and is part of the HD Graphics-W (Comet Lake) series. The MX130 is fabricated on a 28 nm process by TSMC, while the P630 uses Intel’s 14 nm+++ process, a more advanced node.

The MX130 has a higher transistor density at 13.2M / mm², given its 1,020 million transistors on 77 mm². The P630 does not list transistor count or die size, preventing a direct comparison. In terms of API support, the MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The P630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The higher DX12 feature level on the P630 is a notable architectural advantage for modern games.

The shading unit count is the most striking difference: 384 on the MX130 versus 192 on the P630. However, the P630 matches the MX130 in TMUs (24 each) and has a slightly higher texture rate. The MX130’s ROP count of 8 is more than double the P630’s 3, contributing to its much higher pixel rate (9.512 GPixel/s vs 3.600 GPixel/s). The MX130 also has a higher FP32 throughput, but the P630 counters with FP16 support at 921.6 GFLOPS, which the MX130 lacks entirely. The P630’s TDP is half that of the MX130 (15 W vs 30 W), reflecting its integrated nature and lower overall power envelope.