NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics, separated by three years of product cycles and targeting entirely different segments of the laptop market. The benchmark data shows a stark performance gap, but the full picture involves more than just raw scores. The MX130 is a low-power IGP solution for everyday computing, while the GTX 980M is a high-end MXM module designed for gaming laptops. The head-to-head numbers in the FACT PACK reveal that the GTX 980M wins decisively in every shared benchmark, but the MX130 holds its own in its intended role as a budget-friendly option.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data indicates a complete sweep for the GTX 980M, winning both shared benchmarks by a substantial margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 980M scores 23,832 against the MX130's 6,102, a difference of 74.4% in favor of the older, larger chip. The Vulkan result follows a similar pattern, with the GTX 980M hitting 17,703 while the MX130 manages 4,914, a 72.2% delta. These are not marginal improvements; they represent a fundamentally higher level of compute capability.

Contextualizing these scores with the nearest rivals from the FACT PACK reinforces the gap. The MX130's average benchmark score of 5,508 places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, with its closest competitor being the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at a 0.1% delta. The GTX 980M, despite its higher absolute scores, sits at the 31st percentile with an average of 5,308, because its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce 930A, 840M, and 940M—all much weaker parts. This means while the GTX 980M is 74.4% faster than the MX130 in OpenCL, its average score is dragged down by the PassMark DirectX 9 test where it scores 125, a legacy benchmark that doesn't reflect modern workloads.

The wins are not just in raw compute. The GTX 980M's PassMark G3D score of 7,338 dwarfs the MX130's overall average, and even its DirectX 11 result of 57 is telling. The MX130 has no corresponding PassMark scores in the FACT PACK, so the comparison relies on the two Geekbench tests. Still, the conclusion is unambiguous: for any compute-heavy task, the GTX 980M is in a different league, with the deltaPct figures confirming a near-total performance advantage.

Architecture Differences

Both chips are built on a 28 nm TSMC process, but the similarities end there. The MX130 uses the GM108S die, a Maxwell architecture chip with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² package. The GTX 980M uses the GM204 die, part of the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, packing 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² package. The transistor density is nearly identical—13.2M per mm² for the MX130 versus 13.1M per mm² for the GTX 980M—but the raw silicon area is over five times larger on the GTX 980M.

The feature set diverges at the API level. The MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning it is technically compatible with DirectX 12 but only at the 11_0 feature level. The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which includes the full feature set expected of modern titles. Both offer OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so the gap is specific to DirectX 12 features like conservative rasterization and rasterizer-ordered views, which the MX130 lacks.

The memory subsystems are also fundamentally different. The MX130 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 980M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s—four times the bandwidth. This is critical for texture-heavy workloads and high-resolution rendering, where the MX130's narrow bus becomes a bottleneck.

FAQ

Q: Is the GTX 980M worth considering despite being older?

A: Yes, for performance. The GTX 980M wins both shared benchmarks by over 72%, and its 8 GB memory frame buffer with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth is far superior to the MX130's 2 GB at 40.10 GB/s. Its 31st percentile ranking is due to weak legacy DirectX 9 scores, not modern workload performance.

Q: Can the MX130 handle modern games?

A: It can run them, but with limitations. Its DirectX 12 (11_0) support means it lacks the 12_1 features of the GTX 980M. The 384 shading units and 8 ROPs will struggle with high settings, and the 64-bit memory bus will limit texture throughput. The data does not include game-specific benchmarks, but the compute scores suggest entry-level 720p gaming at best.

Q: Which card has better driver support?

A: Both are end-of-life products, but the GTX 980M's Maxwell 2.0 architecture is more widely supported in modern drivers due to its DirectX 12 (12_1) compliance. The MX130's 11_0 support may see fewer optimizations in new titles.

Q: Why does the GTX 980M have a lower percentile than the MX130 despite higher scores?

A: Percentile is relative to all GPUs, and the GTX 980M's average score of 5,308 is pulled down by its PassMark DirectX 9 score of 125 and DirectX 12 score of 31. The MX130's average of 5,508 is higher because it only has two Geekbench scores, both of which are more balanced.

Q: Is the GTX 980M suitable for a laptop upgrade?

A: It uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface, which is a standardized module format, but most laptops have soldered GPUs. The MX130 is an IGP, meaning it's integrated into the motherboard and not upgradeable. Check your laptop's design before assuming either is replaceable.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The MX130 has a TDP of 30 W, while the GTX 980M has no listed TDP in the data. The MX130's slot width is IGP, implying it draws power from the motherboard, whereas the GTX 980M's MXM Module form factor typically requires dedicated cooling and power delivery.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification except the process node and memory clock. The MX130 runs at a base clock of 1109 MHz with a boost of 1189 MHz, while the GTX 980M has a lower base of 1038 MHz and boost of 1127 MHz. Despite lower clocks, the GTX 980M's 1536 shading units versus 384, 96 TMUs versus 24, and 64 ROPs versus 8 deliver massive throughput advantages.

Memory capacity and bus width are the most striking differences: 8 GB versus 2 GB, and 256-bit versus 64-bit, resulting in a 160.4 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s bandwidth gap. The pixel rate is 72.13 GPixel/s for the GTX 980M versus 9.512 GPixel/s for the MX130, and texture rate is 108.2 GTexel/s versus 28.54 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.462 TFLOPS versus 913.2 GFLOPS—roughly a 3.8x difference.

The bus interface also differs: the MX130 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the GTX 980M uses MXM-B (3.0). The MX130 has no power connectors and a TDP of 30 W, whereas the GTX 980M lists no TDP but its MXM form factor implies higher power draw. The MX130 was released on 2017-11-16, while the GTX 980M dates to 2014-10-06, making the MX130 a newer but weaker product.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the GTX 980M is the superior performer by any objective measure. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by over 72%, has four times the memory bandwidth, eight times the ROPs, and a DirectX 12 (12_1) feature set that the MX130 lacks. The 980M's lower percentile ranking is a statistical artifact of its legacy DirectX 9 score, not a reflection of real-world capability.

The MX130 is not a gaming card. Its 32nd percentile and 5,508 average score place it in the same league as the GeForce GTX 765M, a part from an older generation. It is best suited for light productivity, video playback, and casual use where its 30 W TDP and IGP form factor are advantages. The GTX 980M, despite being older, is a high-end part that belongs in a gaming laptop, and its 8 GB frame buffer makes it viable for modern titles at 1080p.

For a buyer choosing between a system with an MX130 and one with a GTX 980M, the GTX 980M is the only choice for gaming or creative work. The MX130's only wins are efficiency and integration, but the benchmark data shows no performance scenario where it outperforms the GTX 980M.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 980M wins in every compute-heavy scenario. Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores show a 74.4% and 72.2% advantage, respectively, which translates to faster rendering, better physics simulations, and smoother gameplay. Its 160.4 GB/s bandwidth and 3.462 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it suitable for 1080p gaming, 3D modeling, and video editing. The DirectX 12 (12_1) support ensures compatibility with the latest graphics features, and the 8 GB memory capacity handles large textures without swapping.

The MX130 wins in scenarios where power draw and physical footprint matter. Its 30 W TDP and IGP slot width mean it can be passively cooled in ultra-thin laptops without a discrete power connector. The PCIe 3.0 x4 interface is sufficient for its 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, and the 2 GB memory is adequate for desktop productivity, web browsing, and 4K video playback. It is not a gaming solution, but for office work and media consumption, it provides a capable baseline without the thermal and power demands of the GTX 980M.

In summary, the GTX 980M is the clear winner for anyone needing graphics performance, while the MX130 is a pragmatic choice for power-sensitive, non-gaming laptops. The benchmark results leave no ambiguity about which is faster.