NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data splits these two mobile GPUs cleanly by workload and era. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, built on Kepler, delivers a decisive win in the only head-to-head test recorded: Geekbench OpenCL. It scores 8552 against the MX130's 6102, a 40.2% advantage. The GTX 770M also posts a higher average benchmark score of 6000 versus 5508 for the MX130, and it sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, three points above the MX130's 32nd percentile.

The MX130 is not without purpose. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 4914 shows capability in a modern API that the GTX 770M does not record. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute, the GTX 770M is the clear choice. For those needing Vulkan support and lower power draw, the MX130 has its place. The GTX 770M is the stronger performer overall, but the MX130 is a more recent, more efficient design. The data indicates that the GTX 770M wins on raw compute, while the MX130 wins on architectural currency and efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectural generations. The GTX 770M uses the GK106 chip based on Kepler, while the MX130 uses the GM108S chip based on Maxwell. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but they diverge sharply in scale. The GTX 770M packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The MX130 is far smaller: 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a higher density of 13.2M per mm². The GTX 770M is physically larger and more complex, but the MX130 packs its transistors more tightly.

Shading resources differ substantially. The GTX 770M carries 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Clock speeds favor the newer chip. The GTX 770M runs at a 706 MHz base and 797 MHz boost, while the MX130 runs at 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost. The MX130's higher clocks partially compensate for its smaller configuration. The GTX 770M still holds the compute lead: its FP32 throughput is 1.530 TFLOPS versus 913.2 GFLOPS for the MX130.

Memory architectures are also different. The GTX 770M uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 96.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX130 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, with 40.10 GB/s. The GTX 770M has nearly two and a half times the memory bandwidth. The MX130's memory runs at a higher effective speed of 5 Gbps versus 4 Gbps for the GTX 770M, but the narrower bus caps its total throughput. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: the GTX 770M hits 15.94 GPixel/s and 63.76 GTexel/s, while the MX130 manages 9.512 GPixel/s and 28.54 GTexel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 770M wins in OpenCL compute workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 8552 versus 6102 for the MX130 is a 40.2% margin, the only recorded head-to-head result. This advantage stems from its larger shading unit count, wider memory bus, and higher texture and pixel rates. Any workload that scales with shader throughput or memory bandwidth will favor the GTX 770M.

The MX130 wins in API coverage and efficiency. It records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4914, a test the GTX 770M does not appear in. The MX130 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 770M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. The MX130's TDP is 30 W, less than half the GTX 770M's 75 W. It is an IGP form factor on a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the GTX 770M is an MXM module on MXM-B (3.0). For thin-and-light portables where power and space are constrained, the MX130 is the more practical fit.

The GTX 770M also holds the average score advantage. Its 6000 average is 8.9% above the MX130's 5508. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the GTX 770M sits within 0.2% of the AMD FirePro W4100 and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, while the MX130 is 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M440 and 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000. The GTX 770M competes in a slightly higher performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M averages 6000, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 averages 5508.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 770M in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 770M scores 8552 against the MX130's 6102, a 40.2% advantage.

Q: Does the MX130 support any API the GTX 770M does not?

A: The MX130 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 770M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. The MX130 also has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 4914, which the GTX 770M lacks.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The GTX 770M has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 96.19 GB/s bandwidth. The MX130 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is more power efficient?

A: The MX130 has a 30 W TDP, while the GTX 770M has a 75 W TDP. The MX130 is an IGP form factor, the GTX 770M is an MXM module.

Q: How do the shading resources compare?

A: The GTX 770M has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 770M wins with a score of 8552 against the MX130's 6102. That is a 40.2% delta, a substantial margin that reflects the underlying hardware differences. The GTX 770M has 960 shading units versus 384, a 192-bit memory bus versus 64-bit, and 1.530 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus 913.2 GFLOPS. These are not small gaps, and the OpenCL result confirms they translate into real compute performance.

The MX130's strongest recorded result is its Geekbench Vulkan score of 4914. The GTX 770M has no Vulkan benchmark in the database, so a direct comparison is impossible. The MX130's Vulkan support at version 1.4 versus the GTX 770M's 1.2.175 suggests the newer chip is better prepared for modern graphics APIs. In the OpenCL test, however, the MX130 falls far behind. Its 6102 score is 71.3% of the GTX 770M's 8552, a gap that no clock speed advantage can close.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The GTX 770M averages 6000, which places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The MX130 averages 5508, in the 32nd percentile. The GTX 770M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 at 6001 (0% delta) and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 (0.1% delta). The MX130's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (0.1% delta) and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483 (0.5% delta). The GTX 770M competes with desktop-class parts, while the MX130 sits among older mobile chips.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The GTX 770M uses the GK106 chip on Kepler architecture, part of the GeForce 700M generation. The MX130 uses the GM108S chip on Maxwell architecture, part of the GeForce MX (1xx) generation. Both use a 28 nm TSMC process, but the GTX 770M has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the MX130 has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Transistor density favors the MX130 at 13.2M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the MX130. Its base clock is 1109 MHz and boost is 1189 MHz, compared to 706 MHz base and 797 MHz boost for the GTX 770M. Memory speed also favors the MX130 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The GTX 770M counters with a larger memory configuration: 3 GB versus 2 GB, 192-bit bus versus 64-bit, and 96.19 GB/s bandwidth versus 40.10 GB/s.

Compute resources strongly favor the GTX 770M. It has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the MX130. Pixel rate is 15.94 GPixel/s versus 9.512 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 63.76 GTexel/s versus 28.54 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 1.530 TFLOPS versus 913.2 GFLOPS. Power draw favors the MX130 at 30 W versus 75 W. The GTX 770M is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface; the MX130 is an IGP on PCIe 3.0 x4. Both lack dedicated power connectors. The GTX 770M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 770M released on 2013-05-29, the MX130 on 2017-11-16. Both are end-of-life. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.