NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different eras, separated by roughly four and a half years in release timing. The MX130, built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, targets thin-and-light integrated graphics packages, while the GTX 765M, using the Kepler architecture with the GK106 chip, is a dedicated MXM module designed for larger gaming laptops. Benchmark data from Geekbench shows a near-identical average score across both parts—5508 for the MX130 and 5501 for the GTX 765M—placing them in the same 32nd percentile of all GPUs. Despite this statistical tie, their underlying designs and individual test results reveal distinct strengths that matter for different workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 765M is the clear winner in raw compute benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 7176 against the MX130’s 6102, a 15% advantage. The gap widens substantially in Geekbench Vulkan, where the GTX 765M posts 6714 versus 4914, a 26.8% lead. These results indicate that the 765M delivers markedly better performance in GPU-accelerated tasks that leverage compute APIs, such as OpenCL-based rendering or Vulkan-enabled games and applications. The MX130, in contrast, has no Geekbench Metal score listed, while the GTX 765M records 2612 in that test, further reinforcing the older part’s broader benchmark coverage.

The MX130’s wins are not in raw performance but in efficiency and integration. Its TDP of 30 W is less than half of the GTX 765M’s 75 W, and it uses an IGP slot width with no power connectors, whereas the GTX 765M requires an MXM module. For tasks that do not push the GPU to its limits, the MX130’s lower power draw translates to less heat and longer battery life in portable systems. The data also shows the MX130 has a higher base clock of 1109 MHz and boost clock of 1189 MHz, compared to the GTX 765M’s 797 MHz base and 863 MHz boost. This clock advantage helps the MX130 stay competitive in lighter workloads despite having fewer processing units.

Neither part wins in average score—the delta between them is a mere 0.1% in favor of the MX130, with the GTX 765M’s nearest rival list showing a -0.1% delta against the MX130. The MX130 also edges out the AMD Radeon R7 M440 by 0.5% and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 by 0.7%, while trailing the AMD FirePro M4000 by 0.5%. The GTX 765M’s rival comparison shows it ahead of the R7 M440 by 0.3% and the Quadro M4000 by 0.6%, but behind the FirePro M4000 by 0.7%. These margins are negligible in real-world terms, but the individual benchmark splits are not.

The Verdict

For users prioritizing maximum compute performance in applications that use OpenCL or Vulkan, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is the data-backed choice. Its 15% OpenCL lead and 26.8% Vulkan lead over the MX130 are substantial, and it also supports Metal, which the MX130 does not list. The 765M’s higher transistor count of 2,540 million versus 1,020 million, larger die size of 221 mm² versus 77 mm², and double the shading units (768 vs 384), TMUs (64 vs 24), and ROPs (16 vs 8) explain its compute advantage. It also offers a 128-bit memory bus with 64.13 GB/s bandwidth versus the MX130’s 64-bit bus at 40.10 GB/s, making it better suited for memory-intensive tasks.

For users who need a low-power integrated solution for basic acceleration or light gaming, the MX130 is the sensible option. Its 30 W TDP and IGP form factor fit into ultraportable designs where the GTX 765M’s 75 W and MXM slot would be impractical. The MX130’s higher clock speeds partially compensate for its fewer cores, allowing it to match the 765M in average score. However, the benchmark data does not show a single test where the MX130 outperforms the GTX 765M; the MX130 wins zero head-to-head benchmarks. The GTX 765M wins both. Therefore, the verdict is straightforward: if compute power matters, choose the GTX 765M; if integration and efficiency are paramount, the MX130 is the only viable option of the two, but it sacrifices performance to achieve that.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test provides the first clear separation. The GTX 765M scores 7176, while the MX130 scores 6102, yielding a 15% delta in favor of the older Kepler part. This result aligns with the GTX 765M’s hardware: 768 shading units operating at lower clocks but with more than double the texture rate (55.23 GTexel/s vs 28.54 GTexel/s) and a higher pixel rate (13.81 GPixel/s vs 9.512 GPixel/s). The GTX 765M’s FP32 throughput of 1,325.6 GFLOPS also exceeds the MX130’s 913.2 GFLOPS by roughly 45%, which directly impacts compute benchmarks.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even larger gap. The GTX 765M scores 6714, and the MX130 scores 4914, a 26.8% difference. Vulkan’s lower overhead exposes the MX130’s architectural limitations—its 64-bit memory bus and 8 ROPs become bottlenecks in draw-call-heavy workloads. The GTX 765M’s 128-bit bus and 16 ROPs provide double the memory bandwidth and fill rate, which matters for modern API workloads. Notably, the MX130 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 765M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, yet the newer API version does not translate into a performance win for the MX130.

The GTX 765M also has a Geekbench Metal score of 2612, which is absent for the MX130. This absence means the MX130 cannot be evaluated for Metal-based applications, while the GTX 765M has at least a baseline result. Across the two shared tests, the GTX 765M wins both, and the head-to-head summary lists winsA as 0 and winsB as 2. The MX130’s average benchmark score of 5508 is only 7 points higher than the GTX 765M’s 5501, but that average is pulled up by its OpenCL result; the Vulkan score drags it down. In isolation, the MX130’s scores are 6102 and 4914, averaging 5508, while the GTX 765M’s three scores (2612 Metal, 7176 OpenCL, 6714 Vulkan) average 5501, showing that the Metal test significantly lowers the 765M’s average despite its superior OpenCL and Vulkan numbers.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 has an average benchmark score of 5508, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M has 5501. The difference is 0.1% in favor of the MX130.

Q: Does the GTX 765M support Metal?

A: Yes, the GTX 765M has a Geekbench Metal score of 2612. The MX130 does not list any Metal benchmark result.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MX130 has a TDP of 30 W, while the GTX 765M has a TDP of 75 W. The MX130 uses an IGP slot width with no power connectors, whereas the GTX 765M uses an MXM Module slot.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The GTX 765M wins in Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 6714, compared to the MX130’s 4914, a 26.8% advantage.

Q: How do their memory buses compare?

A: The MX130 has a 64-bit memory bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 765M has a 128-bit bus with 64.13 GB/s bandwidth. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, double the MX130’s 384. The GTX 765M also has 64 TMUs and 16 ROPs, versus the MX130’s 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures. The MX130 uses Maxwell, built on the GM108S chip, while the GTX 765M uses Kepler, built on the GK106 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but their transistor budgets diverge significantly: the MX130 packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The GTX 765M uses 2,540 million transistors across a 221 mm² die, with a lower density of 11.5M per mm². This means the MX130 is more transistor-dense per area, reflecting its newer design, but the GTX 765M has far more total transistors for compute.

The memory subsystems differ beyond bandwidth. The MX130 runs memory at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, while the GTX 765M runs at 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective. Despite the MX130’s higher memory clock, its 64-bit bus halves the data path, resulting in lower overall bandwidth. The GTX 765M’s wider 128-bit bus compensates for its slower clock. In terms of API support, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the MX130 lists Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 765M lists Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

The GTX 765M’s predecessor is the GeForce 600M series, and its successor is the GeForce 800M series. The MX130 belongs to the GeForce MX (1xx) generation, with no listed predecessor or successor. The MX130 was released on 2017-11-16, while the GTX 765M was released on 2013-05-29, marking a 4.5-year gap. Both are end-of-life products. The GTX 765M’s pixel rate of 13.81 GPixel/s and texture rate of 55.23 GTexel/s easily outpace the MX130’s 9.512 GPixel/s and 28.54 GTexel/s, reflecting its larger ROP and TMU counts.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the specification data:

• Chip: MX130 uses GM108S; GTX 765M uses GK106.
• Architecture: MX130 is Maxwell; GTX 765M is Kepler.
• Generation: MX130 is GeForce MX (1xx); GTX 765M is GeForce 700M.
• Transistors: MX130 has 1,020 million; GTX 765M has 2,540 million.
• Die Size: MX130 is 77 mm²; GTX 765M is 221 mm².
• Transistor Density: MX130 is 13.2M / mm²; GTX 765M is 11.5M / mm².
• Base Clock: MX130 is 1109 MHz; GTX 765M is 797 MHz.
• Boost Clock: MX130 is 1189 MHz; GTX 765M is 863 MHz.
• Memory Clock: MX130 is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective); GTX 765M is 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective).
• Memory Bus Width: MX130 is 64 bit; GTX 765M is 128 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: MX130 is 40.10 GB/s; GTX 765M is 64.13 GB/s.
• Shading Units: MX130 has 384; GTX 765M has 768.
• TMUs: MX130 has 24; GTX 765M has 64.
• ROPs: MX130 has 8; GTX 765M has 16.
• Pixel Rate: MX130 is 9.512 GPixel/s; GTX 765M is 13.81 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: MX130 is 28.54 GTexel/s; GTX 765M is 55.23 GTexel/s.
• FP32: MX130 is 913.2 GFLOPS; GTX 765M is 1,325.6 GFLOPS.
• TDP: MX130 is 30 W; GTX 765M is 75 W.
• Slot Width: MX130 is IGP; GTX 765M is MXM Module.
• Bus Interface: MX130 is PCIe 3.0 x4; GTX 765M is MXM-B (3.0).
• Vulkan Version: MX130 is 1.4; GTX 765M is 1.2.175.
• Release Date: MX130 is 2017-11-16; GTX 765M is 2013-05-29.
• Predecessor: MX130 has none listed; GTX 765M is GeForce 600M.
• Successor: MX130 has none listed; GTX 765M is GeForce 800M.
• Geekbench Metal Score: MX130 has none; GTX 765M has 2612.