NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different eras, and the benchmark data shows a clear, though not overwhelming, edge for the newer MX130. In the head-to-head results, the MX130 takes both available tests. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6102 is 8.9% higher than the GTX 760M’s 5604. The Vulkan gap is much narrower, with the MX130 scoring 4914 versus 4868, a mere 0.9% difference. While the MX130 wins on paper in both instances, the Vulkan result is effectively a tie, suggesting the two GPUs are more evenly matched in that specific API workload. The average benchmark score reinforces this, with the MX130 at 5508 compared to the GTX 760M’s 5236, a difference of roughly 5%. The MX130’s overall percentile ranking of 32nd versus the GTX 760M’s 31st places them in the same general performance tier among all GPUs, meaning neither card is a powerhouse by modern standards, but the MX130 holds a consistent lead.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the MX130 posts a score of 6102, which is 8.9% higher than the GTX 760M’s 5604. This is a solid, tangible margin that indicates a real-world advantage in compute-oriented tasks that leverage OpenCL. The delta is significant enough that users would notice the difference in applications that are heavily dependent on this API.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a different story. The MX130 wins again, but with a score of 4914 versus the GTX 760M’s 4868, the deltaPct is just 0.9%. This is within the margin of error for synthetic benchmarks and should be considered a statistical tie. The data suggests that while the MX130 has a slight edge, the GTX 760M’s older Kepler architecture is not completely outclassed in Vulkan workloads. This could be a point in favor of the GTX 760M for users concerned about legacy API performance, as the difference is negligible in practice.

Looking at the broader picture, the MX130’s average benchmark score of 5508 places it 0.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M and 0.5% above the AMD Radeon R7 M440. Meanwhile, the GTX 760M’s average of 5236 puts it 0.9% below the NVIDIA GeForce 940M and 1.3% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M. This context shows that the MX130 competes in a slightly higher performance bracket than the GTX 760M. The MX130 is also 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000, while the GTX 760M is 1.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X. The data consistently places the MX130 ahead, but the GTX 760M is not far behind, especially when considering the Vulkan result.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate that the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is the better choice for general compute performance and OpenCL-accelerated applications. Its 8.9% lead in the OpenCL test is the largest gap between the two cards, making it the clear winner for tasks like video encoding, certain rendering workloads, or any software that can offload work to the GPU via OpenCL. The MX130’s higher average benchmark score of 5508 also suggests it is more consistent across a wider range of tests.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M does not win any head-to-head tests, but the Vulkan result shows it is competitive. With a deltaPct of only 0.9%, the GTX 760M is nearly on par with the MX130 in Vulkan-based games or applications. For a user specifically targeting Vulkan titles, the GTX 760M would not be a significant downgrade from the MX130. The GTX 760M also has a wider memory bus and more memory bandwidth, which could benefit certain workloads that are sensitive to memory throughput, though this is not directly reflected in the provided benchmarks. The GTX 760M’s 16 ROPs and 64 TMUs are double the MX130’s 8 and 24, respectively, which could theoretically improve fill-rate-bound scenarios, but the benchmark data does not show this translating into a win.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from NVIDIA. The MX130 uses the GM108S chip, which is based on the Maxwell architecture. The GTX 760M, on the other hand, uses the GK106S chip, based on the older Kepler architecture. Both are manufactured on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, but the chips are vastly different in size and complexity. The GTX 760M’s GK106S has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the MX130’s GM108S has only 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die. This makes the MX130 a more efficient design in terms of transistor density, at 13.2M / mm² versus the GTX 760M’s 11.5M / mm².

The architectural differences are stark in terms of core configuration. The GTX 760M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This means the GTX 760M has double the shader cores and ROPs, and nearly triple the TMUs. However, the MX130 compensates with much higher clock speeds. Its base clock is 1109 MHz and boost clock is 1189 MHz, compared to the GTX 760M’s much lower 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost clocks. This explains how the MX130 can keep up and even surpass the GTX 760M in benchmarks despite having fewer cores.

Another key difference is the supported Vulkan version. The MX130 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 760M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. This is a significant software advantage for the MX130, as it can run newer Vulkan applications and features that the older GTX 760M cannot. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the newer Vulkan support on the MX130 is a clear generational improvement.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is the memory subsystem. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the GTX 760M uses a 128-bit bus width, resulting in a bandwidth of 64.13 GB/s. The MX130 uses a narrower 64-bit bus, capping its bandwidth at 40.10 GB/s. This is a significant disadvantage for the MX130, as the GTX 760M can move data much faster. The MX130’s memory clock is higher at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the GTX 760M’s 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), but the wider bus on the GTX 760M wins out in total bandwidth.

The compute specifications also differ substantially. The MX130 has an FP32 performance of 913.2 GFLOPS, while the GTX 760M has a higher FP32 of 1,104.4 GFLOPS. The pixel rate is 9.512 GPixel/s for the MX130 and 11.50 GPixel/s for the GTX 760M, and the texture rate is 28.54 GTexel/s for the MX130 versus 46.02 GTexel/s for the GTX 760M. In every raw throughput metric, the GTX 760M is ahead, but the MX130’s superior clock speeds and architecture efficiency allow it to win the actual benchmarks.

The power and form factor are also different. The MX130 has a TDP of 30 W and uses an IGP slot width, while the GTX 760M has a TDP of 55 W and uses an MXM Module form factor. The MX130 is also connected via PCIe 3.0 x4, while the GTX 760M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The MX130’s lower power draw makes it suitable for thinner laptops, while the GTX 760M’s higher power envelope suggests it was intended for larger, more performance-oriented machines. The release dates are also far apart, with the GTX 760M launching on 2013-05-29 and the MX130 on 2017-11-16.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 has a higher average benchmark score of 5508, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M’s 5236.

Q: Is the MX130 significantly better in Vulkan performance?

A: No. The MX130 scores 4914 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is only 0.9% higher than the GTX 760M’s 4868, making the difference negligible.

Q: Does the GTX 760M have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The GTX 760M has a 128-bit memory bus providing 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth, while the MX130 has a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The GTX 760M has a significantly higher transistor count of 2,540 million, compared to the MX130’s 1,020 million.

Q: What is the difference in TDP between the two?

A: The MX130 has a TDP of 30 W, making it more power-efficient than the GTX 760M, which has a TDP of 55 W.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The MX130 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 760M only supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is the superior GPU for most users. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score, and a better overall percentile ranking. Its lead in OpenCL is substantial at 8.9%, and even where it is close, such as Vulkan, it still comes out ahead. The MX130 achieves this with a much lower TDP of 30 W, making it the more efficient choice for a laptop. The newer architecture and Vulkan 1.4 support also provide a longer software lifespan.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M, however, is not a terrible option. It has double the memory bandwidth, more shaders, and higher raw throughput numbers for pixel and texture fill rates. If a user is constrained to a system that only supports a GTX 760M, or if they are specifically targeting workloads that are sensitive to memory bandwidth, the GTX 760M could be a viable choice. The Vulkan benchmark shows it can hang with the MX130, and its higher FP32 performance of 1,104.4 GFLOPS could be useful in certain compute tasks. However, in the direct comparison presented here, the MX130 is the better performer in the tests that matter most for overall benchmark scores. The data clearly favors the MX130 for anyone looking at these two specific mobile GPUs.