GPU Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between these two mobile GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results show a clear but not overwhelming advantage for the NVIDIA GeForce MX130. The MX130 scores 6102 points against the GeForce 930A's 5317 points, a delta of 14.8 percent. This is a meaningful gap in raw compute performance, placing the MX130 roughly one tier above its older sibling in practical throughput for general-purpose GPU workloads.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the MX130's average benchmark score of 5508 places it at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the 930A sits at 5317 points and the 31st percentile. The percentile difference is small, just one percentage point, which suggests that while the MX130 wins the head-to-head, both parts occupy a similar performance class in the grand scheme of GPU rankings. The MX130's OpenCL victory is consistent with its overall standing, but neither card is going to challenge modern discrete GPUs.

The nearest rivals for the MX130 illustrate how tight this segment is. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M trails by just 0.1 percent with an average score of 5501, and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 is 0.5 percent behind at 5483. Interestingly, the MX130 actually loses to the AMD FirePro M4000 by 0.5 percent (5537 points) and only beats the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 by 0.7 percent (5467 points). These sub-one-percent deltas indicate that the MX130 is squarely in the middle of a crowded pack of entry-level mobile graphics solutions.

The GeForce 930A's rival set tells a similar story. It is virtually tied with the NVIDIA GeForce 840M, which scores 5322 points for a delta of -0.1 percent. The 930A edges out the GeForce GTX 980M by 0.2 percent (5308 points) and the GeForce 940M by 0.6 percent (5284 points), while losing to the AMD Radeon R7 M445 by 0.8 percent (5358 points). The presence of the GTX 980M in this list is curious, it suggests that benchmark scores alone do not always align with product tiers, and that the 930A's particular driver optimizations or test conditions may favor it in ways that raw specifications would not predict.

What does the 14.8 percent OpenCL delta actually mean in practice? For compute-oriented tasks like OpenCL acceleration in productivity applications, the MX130 should deliver noticeably faster results. The gap is large enough to be perceptible in rendering or video processing workloads, yet small enough that both GPUs remain firmly in the entry-level bracket. The MX130's win is real, but it is not transformative.

# Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture using TSMC's 28 nm process node, and they share the same fundamental silicon characteristics. The MX130 uses the GM108S chip while the 930A uses the GM108, the "S" suffix on the MX130 likely indicates a slightly revised or binned variant, though the underlying die is essentially the same. Both chips pack 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding an identical transistor density of 13.2M per square millimeter.

The shading core counts are identical: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units on both parts. This means the architectural compute ceiling is the same; the performance difference must come from clock speeds and memory configuration rather than core count.

This is where the two diverge significantly. The MX130 runs at a base clock of 1109 MHz with a boost of 1189 MHz, while the 930A operates at a much more conservative 928 MHz base and 941 MHz boost. That is a substantial clock advantage for the MX130, roughly 19.5 percent higher base and 26.4 percent higher boost. The clock delta directly translates into the observed performance gap.

Memory configuration amplifies the difference. The MX130 pairs its 2 GB frame buffer with GDDR5 memory running at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) across a 64-bit bus, yielding 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The 930A uses 2 GB of DDR3 at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) on the same 64-bit bus, producing only 16.02 GB/s. That is a 2.5x bandwidth advantage for the MX130, a massive difference that affects texture-heavy workloads, higher resolutions, and any application that is memory-bandwidth bound. For an entry-level GPU, memory bandwidth is often the limiting factor, and the MX130's GDDR5 gives it a decisive edge.

The clock and memory differences manifest in the derived rates. The MX130 achieves 9.512 GPixel/s pixel fill rate and 28.54 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 7.528 GPixel/s and 22.58 GTexel/s for the 930A. The FP32 compute throughput is 913.2 GFLOPS for the MX130 against 722.7 GFLOPS for the 930A, a 26.4 percent advantage that tracks closely with the boost clock difference.

Power and interface specs differ as well. The MX130 has a 30 W TDP, while the 930A is rated at 33 W. Both are IGP-class parts with no power connectors and "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs, meaning they are designed for laptops where the system integrator decides the actual display hookup. The bus interface differs: the MX130 uses PCIe 3.0 x4 while the 930A uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The 930A's wider bus is interesting given its lower bandwidth memory, the extra lanes may help with system-level data transfer but do not compensate for the memory bandwidth deficit.

Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. The MX130 was released on 2017-11-16, while the 930A came earlier on 2015-03-12. The 930A's predecessor is listed as the GeForce 800A, while the MX130 has no predecessor listed. Both are end-of-life products.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The MX130 delivers 913.2 GFLOPS FP32 compute versus 722.7 GFLOPS for the 930A, a 26.4 percent advantage driven entirely by higher clock speeds since both have 384 shading units.

Q: Why is the memory bandwidth difference so large?

A: The MX130 uses GDDR5 memory at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, providing 40.10 GB/s. The 930A uses DDR3 at 1001 MHz with 2 Gbps effective, yielding 16.02 GB/s. The MX130 has roughly 2.5 times the bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs the same chip?

A: They share the same transistor count (1,020 million), die size (77 mm²), and architecture (Maxwell), but the MX130 uses the GM108S variant while the 930A uses GM108. The core configuration is identical at 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Q: How do they compare in benchmark percentile?

A: The MX130 sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 5508, while the 930A is at the 31st percentile with 5317 points. Despite the 14.8 percent head-to-head delta, their overall standings are nearly identical.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The MX130 has a lower TDP at 30 W compared to the 930A's 33 W, while delivering higher performance, making it the more efficient part on both metrics.

Q: Do they support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so there is no difference in API feature support.

# The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is the superior GPU in every measurable performance category. It wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark by 14.8 percent, has higher clock speeds across the board, and crucially, uses GDDR5 memory that provides 2.5 times the bandwidth of the 930A's DDR3. The MX130 also has a lower TDP at 30 W versus 33 W, making it both faster and more power-efficient.

The 930A's only technical advantages are a wider PCIe bus (x8 versus x4) and an earlier release date, neither of which helps in real-world graphics performance. The MX130's higher pixel rate (9.512 GPixel/s vs 7.528 GPixel/s), texture rate (28.54 GTexel/s vs 22.58 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (913.2 GFLOPS vs 722.7 GFLOPS) leave no room for ambiguity.

However, the percentile standings temper expectations. At 32nd and 31st percentiles respectively, both GPUs are entry-level parts. The MX130's win is meaningful within its class, but it does not boost the GPU to a higher tier. The nearest rival data shows both parts surrounded by others within a one-percent margin, indicating that the entire segment is tightly packed.

For anyone choosing between these two, the MX130 is the clear pick. It offers better performance, better memory, and better efficiency in a package that is otherwise architecturally identical. The 930A would only make sense in a system where it is already installed and cannot be replaced, or where the PCIe x8 interface is a hard requirement.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX130 | NVIDIA GeForce 930A |

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

| Chip | GM108S | GM108 |

| Generation | GeForce MX (1xx) | GeForce 900A |

| Base Clock | 1109 MHz | 928 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1189 MHz | 941 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 40.10 GB/s | 16.02 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 9.512 GPixel/s | 7.528 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 28.54 GTexel/s | 22.58 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 913.2 GFLOPS | 722.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | 33 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Release Date | 2017-11-16 | 2015-03-12 |

| Predecessor | None listed | GeForce 800A |

Identical specifications include process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistors (1,020 million), die size (77 mm²), transistor density (13.2M/mm²), memory size (2 GB), memory bus width (64 bit), shading units (384), TMUs (24), ROPs (8), slot width (IGP), power connectors (None), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent), DirectX (12 (11_0)), OpenGL (4.6), and Vulkan (1.4).

# Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce MX130 wins on: Every performance benchmark available. The OpenCL head-to-head goes to the MX130 by 14.8 percent. Its GDDR5 memory bandwidth is a decisive advantage for any memory-intensive workload, higher resolution textures, anti-aliasing, or compute tasks that stream large data sets. The higher clock speeds mean better frame rates in GPU-bound scenarios, and the lower TDP makes it a better fit for thinner laptops where thermal headroom is limited. The MX130's 40.10 GB/s bandwidth versus 16.02 GB/s is the single biggest differentiator, and it shows in the 2.5x bandwidth ratio.

NVIDIA GeForce 930A wins on: Essentially nothing in direct performance. The PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is twice the width of the MX130's x4, which could theoretically reduce data transfer bottlenecks in system-memory-heavy tasks, but the 930A's slower memory and clocks negate any such advantage. The earlier release date means it appeared in laptops two years before the MX130, so in practice it is more likely to be found in older, cheaper systems, but that is not a performance win. The 930A's nearest rival list includes the GeForce GTX 980M with a 0.2 percent delta, suggesting that under certain test conditions the 930A can punch above its weight class, but this does not translate into a consistent advantage over the MX130.

The use-case split is therefore lopsided. For gaming, general productivity, OpenCL acceleration, or any graphics workload, the MX130 is the better choice. The 930A is only relevant in legacy systems where it is already present, and even then, the MX130 represents a clear upgrade path within the same Maxwell architecture family. The data does not support any scenario where the 930A is the preferred part.