NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and NVIDIA GeForce 840M are two mobile graphics processors separated by over three years of release timing, yet they share the same fundamental Maxwell architecture and GM108S chip. The data shows a clear, though modest, generational improvement for the MX130, with both parts occupying nearly identical positions in the overall GPU landscape. This analysis examines the benchmark results, architectural similarities, and specification differences to determine what the newer part actually brings to the table.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results are unambiguous: the MX130 wins both recorded tests, but the margin of victory tells a nuanced story. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the MX130 scores 6102 against the 840M's 5764, a delta of 5.9%. This is the more significant victory, representing a real computational advantage in general-purpose GPU workloads. The Vulkan test tells a different tale entirely—the MX130's 4914 barely edges out the 840M's 4880, a razor-thin 0.7% delta that falls well within typical run-to-run variance for mobile GPUs.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The MX130 averages 5508 across all recorded benchmarks, while the 840M averages 5322. That 186-point gap translates to a 3.5% overall advantage for the newer part. The percentile rankings are nearly identical—the MX130 sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the 840M sits at the 31st. Both are firmly in entry-level territory, and the data suggests that despite the OpenCL delta, neither card offers a transformative experience over the other.

The OpenCL result is worth interrogating further. A 5.9% improvement in OpenCL with only a 0.7% improvement in Vulkan suggests that the MX130's gains are concentrated in compute-heavy, non-gaming workloads. The texture rate difference—28.54 GTexel/s for the MX130 versus 17.98 GTexel/s for the 840M—is a massive 58.7% gap that should theoretically benefit game performance, yet the Vulkan benchmark barely reflects this. This discrepancy implies that other bottlenecks, likely memory bandwidth or driver overhead, are constraining the 840M's successor in graphics-centric tasks.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: the MX130 is the faster card, but only by a modest margin. The 5.9% OpenCL lead is the headline number, while the 0.7% Vulkan result is essentially a tie. For anyone considering these two GPUs, the MX130 is the objectively better choice—it wins every recorded benchmark, draws less power at 30 W versus 33 W, and offers significantly higher texture throughput. However, the 31st and 32nd percentile rankings show that both cards are firmly in the same performance class, and neither will deliver a meaningfully different experience in most real-world tasks.

The MX130's advantage is real but narrow. The 5.9% OpenCL delta is the kind of improvement that shows up in productivity apps and compute workloads, while the 0.7% Vulkan delta is imperceptible in gaming. The 840M, despite being three years older, remains competitive because both parts share the same architecture, same 384 shading units, and same 8 ROPs. The MX130's higher clock speeds and faster memory are the differentiators, but they are not enough to create a wide gulf.

Where Each One Wins

The MX130 wins in compute-heavy scenarios. The OpenCL benchmark is its strongest showing, with a 5.9% lead that suggests better sustained performance in GPGPU tasks like video encoding, photo editing, or scientific calculations. The higher FP32 throughput—913.2 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS—supports this, as does the 58.7% texture rate advantage. The MX130 also consumes less power, drawing 30 W versus 33 W, which makes it the better choice for thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is scarce.

The 840M's lone "win" is in the Vulkan benchmark, where its 4880 score nearly matches the MX130's 4914. This is less a victory and more a demonstration of parity in graphics workloads. The 840M's 64-bit memory bus and 8 ROPs mean it can keep pace in rasterization-heavy tasks, even with slower DDR3 memory. For legacy software or games that are not compute-bound, the 840M remains serviceable. The 840M also has a wider PCIe interface—PCIe 3.0 x8 versus the MX130's x4—which could theoretically reduce data transfer bottlenecks, though the benchmark data does not show a tangible benefit.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The MX130 scores 6102 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5764 for the 840M, a 5.9% lead.

Q: Is the MX130 significantly better for gaming?

A: No. In Geekbench Vulkan, the MX130 scores 4914 against 4880 for the 840M, a 0.7% difference that is negligible in practice.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM108S chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The MX130 has a 30 W TDP, while the 840M draws 33 W, making the MX130 slightly more power-efficient.

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

A: The MX130 averages 5508, while the 840M averages 5322, a 3.5% gap.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The MX130, with 40.10 GB/s from GDDR5 memory, versus 16.02 GB/s from DDR3 on the 840M.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same fundamental architecture: Maxwell, on a 28 nm process at TSMC, using the GM108S chip. The transistor count is identical at 1,020 million, and the die size is the same 77 mm², yielding an identical transistor density of 13.2M / mm². Both have 384 shading units and 8 ROPs, meaning the core compute architecture is essentially unchanged between generations.

The differences lie in the supporting hardware. The MX130 has 24 texture mapping units (TMUs) versus 16 on the 840M, a 50% increase that explains its much higher texture rate of 28.54 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. The MX130 also runs higher clocks—1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost versus 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost—which contributes to its FP32 advantage of 913.2 GFLOPS over 863.2 GFLOPS.

The most significant architectural difference is memory. The MX130 uses GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) over a 64-bit bus, yielding 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The 840M uses DDR3 at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) over the same 64-bit bus, yielding just 16.02 GB/s. This 2.5x bandwidth advantage is the single largest spec difference between the two, even though it does not fully translate into benchmark wins. The bus interface also differs: the MX130 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the 840M uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals a clear pattern of incremental improvement. Clock speeds are higher on the MX130: 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost versus 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. The TMU count jumps from 16 to 24, while the shading units and ROPs remain constant at 384 and 8, respectively. The pixel rate is nearly identical—9.512 GPixel/s for the MX130 versus 8.992 GPixel/s for the 840M—but the texture rate diverges sharply at 28.54 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s.

Memory specifications are the most dramatic difference. The MX130 pairs 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 64-bit bus for 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth, while the 840M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on the same bus for 16.02 GB/s. The memory clock is 1253 MHz versus 1001 MHz, and effective speed is 5 Gbps versus 2 Gbps. Power draw favors the MX130 at 30 W versus 33 W, and the bus interface differs with PCIe 3.0 x4 on the MX130 and PCIe 3.0 x8 on the 840M.

Both cards share identical API support: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are designated as IGP slot width with no power connectors and portable device dependent display outputs. The production status for both is end-of-life, with the MX130 released on 2017-11-16 and the 840M on 2014-03-11. The 840M lists its predecessor as GeForce 700M and successor as GeForce 900M, while the MX130 has no listed predecessor or successor. Neither card has a launch MSRP in the data.