NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M has a higher average benchmark score of 6389, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 averages 5508. The GTX 580M also sits at the 37th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the MX130's 32nd percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 580M scores 6389 against the MX130's 6102, giving the older card a 4.7% lead. This is the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database.

Q: What architecture does each GPU use?

A: The GTX 580M uses Fermi 2.0 architecture on a 40 nm process, while the MX130 uses Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm process. The MX130 is the newer design, released in November 2017 versus June 2011 for the GTX 580M.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both GPUs feature 384 shading units. However, the GTX 580M has 64 texture mapping units and 32 ROPs, whereas the MX130 has 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 580M has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s, compared to the MX130's 40.10 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the GTX 580M uses a 256-bit bus versus the MX130's 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between these GPUs?

A: The GTX 580M has a TDP of 100 W, while the MX130 is rated at 30 W. The MX130 is also an integrated graphics package (IGP), while the GTX 580M comes as an MXM module.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different generations of NVIDIA's mobile graphics design. The GTX 580M is built on the GF114 chip using Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The MX130 uses the GM108S chip with Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. This process shrink from 40 nm to 28 nm allows the MX130 to pack its 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, while the GTX 580M spreads 1,950 million transistors across a much larger 332 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the MX130 achieves 13.2M transistors per mm², more than double the GTX 580M's 5.9M per mm².

The memory subsystems differ substantially. The GTX 580M pairs its 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit memory bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The MX130 also has 2 GB of GDDR5 but on a 64-bit bus, yielding 40.10 GB/s at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The MX130's higher memory clock partially compensates for its narrower bus, but the bandwidth gap remains large at 55.90 GB/s in favor of the GTX 580M.

Compute resources are unevenly distributed. Both GPUs have 384 shading units, but the GTX 580M carries 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs, while the MX130 has only 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. This affects fill rates: the GTX 580M achieves 9.920 GPixel/s pixel rate and 39.68 GTexel/s texture rate, versus the MX130's 9.512 GPixel/s and 28.54 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is close, with the GTX 580M at 952.3 GFLOPS and the MX130 at 913.2 GFLOPS, a difference of only about 4%.

The MX130 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 580M's Vulkan support is not listed. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The MX130 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface, whereas the GTX 580M uses MXM-B (3.0), reflecting its removable module design. Neither GPU has RT cores or tensor cores. The MX130's clock speeds are listed at 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost, while the GTX 580M's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database, only its memory clock.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 580M is the stronger performer in raw compute benchmarks. Its 4.7% lead in OpenCL over the MX130, combined with its higher average score of 6389 versus 5508, makes it the choice for tasks that stress GPU compute, such as OpenCL-accelerated workloads. Its 256-bit memory bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth give it a clear advantage in memory-intensive operations, and its higher texture and pixel rates suggest better performance in fill-rate-bound scenarios. The GTX 580M also has double the TMUs and four times the ROPs of the MX130, which matters for traditional rasterization workloads.

The MX130 wins on efficiency and modern platform integration. Its 30 W TDP is a fraction of the GTX 580M's 100 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power and thermals are constrained. It is an IGP package, meaning it is integrated directly into the platform rather than occupying a modular MXM slot. The MX130's smaller die size of 77 mm² and lower transistor count of 1,020 million make it cheaper to produce and easier to cool. It also supports Vulkan 1.4, giving it access to newer graphics APIs that the GTX 580M cannot use. For everyday tasks, light gaming, and media playback, the MX130's lower power draw and newer architecture make it the more practical choice in a modern laptop.

The MX130's average score of 5508 is dragged down by its Vulkan result of 4914, which has no counterpart on the GTX 580M. In the only benchmark where both have recorded scores, the GTX 580M wins. This means users prioritizing compute performance should pick the GTX 580M, while those prioritizing battery life, thermals, and API support should pick the MX130.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GF114 (GTX 580M) vs GM108S (MX130)
• Architecture: Fermi 2.0 vs Maxwell
• Generation: GeForce 500M vs GeForce MX (1xx)
• Process Node: 40 nm vs 28 nm
• Transistors: 1,950 million vs 1,020 million
• Die Size: 332 mm² vs 77 mm²
• Transistor Density: 5.9M / mm² vs 13.2M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) vs 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Base Clock: Not listed vs 1109 MHz
• Boost Clock: Not listed vs 1189 MHz
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s vs 40.10 GB/s
• TMUs: 64 vs 24
• ROPs: 32 vs 8
• Pixel Rate: 9.920 GPixel/s vs 9.512 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 39.68 GTexel/s vs 28.54 GTexel/s
• FP32: 952.3 GFLOPS vs 913.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: 100 W vs 30 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs IGP
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs PCIe 3.0 x4
• Vulkan Support: Not listed vs 1.4
• Release Date: 2011-06-27 vs 2017-11-16
• Predecessor: GeForce 400M vs Not listed
• Successor: GeForce 600M vs Not listed
• Production Status: End-of-life for both

Shared specifications include 2 GB GDDR5 memory, 384 shading units, no RT cores, no tensor cores, no power connectors, portable device dependent display outputs, DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 support, and no listed launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 580M scores 6389, and the MX130 scores 6102, resulting in a 4.7% victory for the GTX 580M. This margin is modest but consistent with the rest of the data. The GTX 580M's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE at a matching 6389, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell at 6407 (0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 at 6330 (0.9% lower), and the AMD Radeon R7 M350 at 6327 (1% lower). This places the GTX 580M in a tight cluster of mid-range GPUs.

The MX130's average benchmark score of 5508 is derived from two tests: its OpenCL score of 6102 and its Vulkan score of 4914. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (0.1% lower), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483 (0.5% lower), the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537 (0.5% higher), and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 at 5467 (0.7% lower). The MX130 sits slightly above its closest competitors, while the GTX 580M sits near the top of its own peer group.

The single head-to-head result favors the GTX 580M, but the margin is small. A 4.7% delta in OpenCL performance is unlikely to be perceptible in most real-world applications. The GTX 580M's wins count is 1, and the MX130's wins count is 0. However, the MX130's Vulkan score of 4914, while lower than its OpenCL score, demonstrates capability in a modern API that the GTX 580M cannot match due to lack of recorded Vulkan support. The overall picture is one of near parity in compute throughput, with the GTX 580M edging ahead on raw numbers while the MX130 offers a more modern feature set and dramatically lower power consumption.