NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 wins both recorded head-to-head tests against the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX. The largest margin appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the MX130 scores 6102 against the 940MX's 4939, a 23.5% advantage. This is a substantial gap in compute workloads, indicating the MX130's higher clock speeds and architectural efficiency deliver a decisive edge in OpenCL-based applications. The Vulkan test is closer, with the MX130 scoring 4914 versus 4749 for the 940MX, a 3.5% lead. While the Vulkan margin is modest, it still favors the MX130, meaning the newer part holds a consistent, if narrower, advantage in graphics API workloads.

Placing these results in context, the MX130's average benchmark score is 5508, which places it at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, a 0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, 0.5% delta), and the AMD FirePro M4000 (5537, a -0.5% delta). The MX130 essentially trades blows with these parts, sitting within a fraction of a percent of each. The 940MX, by contrast, averages 4844, at the 28th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (4855, -0.2% delta), the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867, -0.5% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893, -1% delta). Notably, the 940MX also sits 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791) in this particular database, an artifact of the benchmark's scoring quirks, but the practical takeaway is that the 940MX performs at a level comparable to older midrange discrete GPUs.

The direct head-to-head delta of 23.5% in OpenCL is more than double the 940MX's closest rival gap, meaning the MX130's win is not a marginal statistical fluctuation. It is a real, reproducible performance separation. In Vulkan, the 3.5% delta is smaller than the MX130's edge over the AMD FirePro M4000 in average score, but it still represents a clear victory. Across all recorded tests, the MX130 claims 2 wins, the 940MX claims 0. No test in the database favors the 940MX.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture and manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the silicon underneath differs significantly. The MX130 uses the GM108S chip, a die measuring 77 mm² with 1,020 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm². The 940MX uses the GM107 chip, which is nearly twice as large at 148 mm² and packs 1,870 million transistors, though its density is slightly lower at 12.6 million per mm². The larger GM107 die gives the 940MX more raw resources: 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units, versus 384 shading units and 24 TMUs on the MX130. Both parts share 8 ROPs and 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth, so memory capacity and bandwidth are identical.

Clock speeds, however, favor the MX130 decisively. The MX130 runs at a base clock of 1109 MHz and boosts to 1189 MHz. The 940MX is significantly slower, with a base of 795 MHz and a boost of 861 MHz. This clock advantage allows the MX130 to overcome its fewer shading units and TMUs in many workloads. The pixel rate tells the story: the MX130 delivers 9.512 GPixel/s, while the 940MX manages 6.888 GPixel/s. Texture rate is closer, with the MX130 at 28.54 GTexel/s versus 27.55 GTexel/s for the 940MX, a mere 3.6% difference despite the 940MX having 33% more TMUs. FP32 compute also favors the MX130: 913.2 GFLOPS versus 881.7 GFLOPS, a 3.6% lead. So while the 940MX has more execution units, the MX130's higher clocks let it win in raw throughput metrics.

Power and interface differ as well. The MX130 has a 30 W TDP and uses an IGP slot width, meaning it is designed to be soldered directly onto the motherboard. The 940MX has a lower 23 W TDP but uses an MXM Module slot, indicating a removable mobile graphics card form factor. The bus interface also differs: the MX130 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the 940MX uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Neither part has power connectors, and both are marked end-of-life in the database. The MX130 was released later, on 2017-11-16, while the 940MX came earlier on 2016-06-27. The 940MX has a predecessor (GeForce 800M) and a successor (GeForce 10 Mobile), while the MX130 lists neither. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation: pick the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 if benchmark performance is the sole criterion. It wins both head-to-head tests, has a higher average score (5508 vs 4844), and sits at a higher percentile (32 vs 28). The 23.5% OpenCL lead is substantial and consistent with the MX130's higher clock speeds and better pixel rate. The MX130 also has a higher FP32 throughput (913.2 GFLOPS vs 881.7 GFLOPS) and texture rate (28.54 GTexel/s vs 27.55 GTexel/s), so it wins on every compute metric the database records.

The 940MX's only advantages are architectural in nature, not performance-based. It has more shading units (512 vs 384), more TMUs (32 vs 24), a larger die, and a lower TDP (23 W vs 30 W). The lower power draw could be relevant in thermally constrained thin laptops, but the MX130's IGP form factor suggests it is also designed for compact systems. The 940MX's PCIe 3.0 x8 interface offers double the bus lanes of the MX130's x4 connection, but the benchmark results do not show this translating into a performance win.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs, the recorded data favors the MX130 without qualification. The 940MX should only be selected if the system chassis requires an MXM module or if the lower 23 W TDP is critical for battery life or cooling, but the database does not contain any benchmark where the 940MX wins. The verdict is straightforward: the MX130 is the faster part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 averages 5508, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX averages 4844. The MX130 sits at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs, the 940MX at the 28th.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two in head-to-head tests?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the MX130 scores 6102 versus 4939 for the 940MX, a 23.5% advantage. The Vulkan test shows a smaller gap: 4914 versus 4749, a 3.5% lead for the MX130.

Q: Does the 940MX have more shading units than the MX130?

A: Yes. The 940MX has 512 shading units, while the MX130 has 384. The 940MX also has 32 TMUs versus 24 on the MX130. However, the MX130's higher clock speeds (1109 MHz base, 1189 MHz boost) allow it to achieve higher FP32 throughput: 913.2 GFLOPS versus 881.7 GFLOPS.

Q: Are memory specifications identical between the two GPUs?

A: Yes. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth and a 5 Gbps effective memory speed. Neither has a memory size or bandwidth advantage.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The MX130 has a 30 W TDP, while the 940MX has a 23 W TDP. The 940MX consumes less power, but the MX130 still delivers higher performance in all recorded benchmarks. Neither part uses external power connectors.

Q: Which GPU was released earlier?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX was released on 2016-06-27, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 was released on 2017-11-16. Both are now end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The MX130 wins in compute-heavy and general-purpose workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6102 is 23.5% higher than the 940MX's 4939, indicating a clear advantage in applications that leverage GPU compute, such as video encoding, image processing, and physics simulations. The MX130 also wins in Vulkan graphics workloads, though by a smaller 3.5% margin, making it the better choice for modern API-based games and rendering tasks. Its higher pixel rate (9.512 GPixel/s vs 6.888 GPixel/s) suggests better fill-rate-bound performance in rasterization, and its higher texture rate (28.54 GTexel/s vs 27.55 GTexel/s) means it keeps a slight edge in texture-heavy scenes.

The 940MX wins in no recorded benchmark. Its advantages are limited to hardware resources: more shading units (512 vs 384), more TMUs (32 vs 24), a wider PCIe interface (x8 vs x4), and a lower TDP (23 W vs 30 W). The lower power draw could make it preferable in systems with strict thermal or battery budgets, and the MXM module form factor might be required for certain laptop chassis. But in terms of measured performance, the database shows no test where the 940MX comes out ahead. The MX130 is the superior choice for any workload that benefits from raw compute or graphics throughput, while the 940MX only makes sense when its lower power envelope or specific form factor is a prerequisite.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on the following recorded specifications:

• Chip: MX130 uses GM108S; 940MX uses GM107
• Generation: MX130 is in the GeForce MX (1xx) generation; 940MX is in the GeForce 900M generation
• Transistors: MX130 has 1,020 million; 940MX has 1,870 million
• Die Size: MX130 is 77 mm²; 940MX is 148 mm²
• Transistor Density: MX130 is 13.2M / mm²; 940MX is 12.6M / mm²
• Base Clock: MX130 is 1109 MHz; 940MX is 795 MHz
• Boost Clock: MX130 is 1189 MHz; 940MX is 861 MHz
• Shading Units: MX130 has 384; 940MX has 512
• TMUs: MX130 has 24; 940MX has 32
• Pixel Rate: MX130 is 9.512 GPixel/s; 940MX is 6.888 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: MX130 is 28.54 GTexel/s; 940MX is 27.55 GTexel/s
• FP32: MX130 is 913.2 GFLOPS; 940MX is 881.7 GFLOPS
• TDP: MX130 is 30 W; 940MX is 23 W
• Slot Width: MX130 is IGP; 940MX is MXM Module
• Bus Interface: MX130 is PCIe 3.0 x4; 940MX is PCIe 3.0 x8
• Release Date: MX130 is 2017-11-16; 940MX is 2016-06-27
• Predecessor: MX130 has none listed; 940MX is preceded by GeForce 800M
• Successor: MX130 has none listed; 940MX is succeeded by GeForce 10 Mobile
• Average Benchmark Score: MX130 is 5508; 940MX is 4844
• Percentile: MX130 is 32nd; 940MX is 28th

Both share the same memory size (2 GB), memory type (GDDR5), bus width (64 bit), bandwidth (40.10 GB/s), ROP count (8), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), architecture (Maxwell), API support (DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), and production status (end-of-life).