Intel UHD Graphics P750 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct benchmark comparison between the Intel UHD Graphics P750 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130, using the Geekbench OpenCL workload. In this test, the Intel UHD Graphics P750 scores 6554, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 6102. The Intel part wins this head-to-head matchup by a margin of 7.4 percent, a decisive but not overwhelming advantage. This result places the P750 ahead of its rival in the one recorded compute test, while the MX130 has no benchmark victories in the direct comparison, with a wins tally of zero against the P750's single win.

When placed against the wider field of GPUs, the Intel UHD Graphics P750 sits at the 38th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 ranks at the 32nd percentile. This percentile gap of six points reflects the OpenCL score difference: the P750's 6554 average benchmark score outpaces the MX130's 5508 average. The MX130's average is dragged down by its second recorded benchmark, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4914, which is notably lower than its OpenCL result of 6102. The Intel part, by contrast, has only one recorded benchmark, so its average equals its OpenCL score exactly.

The P750's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon HD 7730M with an average score of 6581, a delta of -0.4 percent relative to the P750, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M at 6513, a delta of 0.6 percent in favor of the P750. The AMD Radeon R7 M460 scores 6612, which is 0.9 percent above the P750, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M scores 6493, 0.9 percent below. These tight deltas, all within one percentage point, indicate that the P750 performs in a very crowded mid-range band, where small margins separate wins from losses.

For the MX130, the nearest rivals are clustered even more tightly. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M averages 5501, a delta of 0.1 percent above the MX130, while the AMD Radeon R7 M440 scores 5483, 0.5 percent lower. The AMD FirePro M4000 averages 5537, which is 0.5 percent above the MX130, and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 5467, 0.7 percent below. The MX130's position in this group shows it is marginally competitive with these older and mid-tier parts, but its overall average score of 5508 places it well behind the P750's 6554.

The head-to-head delta of 7.4 percent is more than enough to put clear distance between the two in compute performance. A 7.4 percent advantage in OpenCL is meaningful for workloads that scale with raw shader throughput, though it is not a generational leap. The data suggests that in compute-heavy tasks, the Intel part holds a consistent edge, while the MX130's Vulkan score of 4914 indicates it may struggle in API-specific workloads where the P750 has no recorded comparable data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 is built on the Rocket Lake chip using Intel's Generation 12.1 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm+++ process at Intel's own foundry. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 uses the GM108S chip based on the older Maxwell architecture, produced by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The process node difference is stark: 14 nm+++ versus 28 nm, with the Intel part using a more advanced manufacturing technology that allows for denser circuitry and lower power draw at similar performance levels.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect this manufacturing gap. The MX130 packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The P750's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database, but its 14 nm+++ process implies a smaller die for a given transistor budget. The P750's thermal design power is 15 W, exactly half of the MX130's 30 W, which underscores the efficiency advantage of the newer process node.

Shading unit counts differ significantly in favor of the NVIDIA part. The MX130 has 384 shading units, while the P750 has 256, a 50 percent advantage for NVIDIA in raw shader count. However, the P750 compensates with a much larger texture mapping unit count: 64 TMUs versus 24 for the MX130, a 2.67x advantage. The render output units tell the opposite story again: the P750 has 32 ROPs, four times the MX130's 8 ROPs. These structural differences explain why the Intel part achieves a pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s, more than four times the MX130's 9.512 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 83.20 GTexel/s, nearly three times the MX130's 28.54 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds also diverge. The P750 runs at a base clock of 350 MHz with a boost up to 1300 MHz, while the MX130 has a base of 1109 MHz and a boost of 1189 MHz. The MX130's higher base clock is offset by the P750's higher boost ceiling and vastly superior ROP and TMU counts. In floating-point performance, the MX130 delivers 913.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the P750 delivers 665.6 GFLOPS, a 37 percent advantage for NVIDIA in raw compute density. The P750 also supports FP16 at 1,331.2 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the MX130 does not record.

Memory configurations are entirely different. The MX130 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective transfer rate. The P750 uses system shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM, a system-dependent bus width, and bandwidth described only as system dependent. This means the P750's memory performance hinges entirely on the host system's RAM and memory controller, while the MX130 has fixed, predictable memory characteristics. The P750's interface is a Ring Bus, while the MX130 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, which affects how each GPU communicates with the rest of the system.

API support shows a subtle difference. The P750 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), a feature-level difference that matters for certain modern graphics effects. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The P750's display outputs are motherboard dependent, while the MX130's are portable device dependent, reflecting their intended deployment contexts.

Where Each One Wins

Benchmark results indicate the Intel UHD Graphics P750 wins in the OpenCL compute workload, scoring 6554 against the MX130's 6102. This 7.4 percent advantage suggests the P750 is the stronger choice for compute-oriented tasks that leverage OpenCL, such as general-purpose GPU compute, image processing, and workloads that benefit from the P750's high ROP count (32) and texture rate (83.20 GTexel/s). The P750's pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s is exceptional for its class, making it well suited for fill-rate-bound scenarios like high-resolution texture rendering or pixel-heavy effects.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 has no recorded benchmark wins over the P750, but the data points to areas where it could excel based on architectural strengths. Its FP32 throughput of 913.2 GFLOPS is 37 percent higher than the P750's 665.6 GFLOPS, which indicates an advantage in shader-heavy workloads that depend on raw floating-point math rather than texture or pixel throughput. The MX130's dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable, consistent memory performance, unlike the P750's system-shared memory, which is system dependent. In scenarios where memory bandwidth is the bottleneck and the host system's RAM is slow or shared with other components, the MX130's dedicated VRAM would be more reliable.

The MX130 also holds an advantage in clock stability, with a base clock of 1109 MHz that is more than three times the P750's 350 MHz base. This means the MX130 delivers consistent performance at idle and low-load states, while the P750 relies on boosting up to 1300 MHz to reach its peak. For sustained workloads that do not trigger boost behavior, the MX130's higher base clock would provide steadier frame pacing.

In terms of API-specific performance, the MX130's Vulkan score of 4914 is recorded, while the P750 has no Vulkan benchmark data. This absence of data means the P750's Vulkan performance is unverified, giving the MX130 a documented edge in that API. The P750's DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level is higher than the MX130's DirectX 12 (11_0), suggesting better support for advanced DirectX 12 features, though no benchmark confirms a practical advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has a higher average benchmark score of 6554, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 averages 5508. The P750's score is 19 percent higher than the MX130's average.

Q: How much faster is the Intel UHD Graphics P750 in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the P750 scores 6554 against the MX130's 6102, a 7.4 percent advantage for the Intel part.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 have any benchmark wins over the Intel UHD Graphics P750?

A: No, the database records zero wins for the MX130 in the head-to-head comparison. The P750 wins the only recorded benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The MX130 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. The P750 uses system shared memory with a system dependent bus width and bandwidth, meaning its memory performance depends on the host system.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 has 384 shading units, while the Intel UHD Graphics P750 has 256 shading units. The MX130 has a 50 percent advantage in this metric.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 has a TDP of 30 W. The P750 draws half the power of the MX130.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel UHD Graphics P750 | NVIDIA GeForce MX130 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Rocket Lake | GM108S |

| Architecture | Generation 12.1 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 14 nm+++ | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not recorded | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 350 MHz | 1109 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1300 MHz | 1189 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 40.10 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 256 | 384 |

| TMUs | 64 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 41.60 GPixel/s | 9.512 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 83.20 GTexel/s | 28.54 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 665.6 GFLOPS | 913.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1) | Not recorded |

| TDP | 15 W | 30 W |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Release Date | Not recorded | 2017-11-16 |

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear but nuanced verdict. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 is the stronger GPU in the one direct benchmark test, winning the Geekbench OpenCL workload with a 7.4 percent margin. Its higher percentile rank (38th versus 32nd), superior pixel rate (41.60 GPixel/s versus 9.512 GPixel/s), and texture rate (83.20 GTexel/s versus 28.54 GTexel/s) make it the better choice for fill-rate-bound and texture-heavy workloads. The P750 also consumes half the power (15 W versus 30 W), which is significant for thermally constrained systems like ultraportable laptops.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130, despite losing the head-to-head benchmark, offers strengths that the P750 cannot match. Its FP32 throughput of 913.2 GFLOPS is 37 percent higher than the P750's 665.6 GFLOPS, making it better suited for shader-bound compute tasks. Its dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent memory performance independent of the host system, a significant advantage over the P750's system-shared memory. The MX130 also has a documented Vulkan score of 4914, while the P750 has no Vulkan data recorded.

For users who prioritize raw compute throughput, shader-heavy applications, or scenarios where dedicated VRAM is essential, the MX130 has a defensible case despite its benchmark loss. For users who need higher fill rates, lower power consumption, and better overall benchmark scores, the P750 is the data-backed recommendation. The P750's wins tally of 1 against 0 for the MX130, combined with its higher average score and percentile rank, makes it the stronger overall part in the database's recorded measurements. The MX130's higher shader count and dedicated memory make it a viable alternative in specific use cases, but the benchmark evidence favors the Intel part.