NVIDIA GeForce MX130 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The GeForce MX230 and GeForce MX130 split their two recorded benchmark tests exactly one win apiece, but the margin of victory tells a very different story. In Geekbench Vulkan, the MX230 posts 6414 against the MX130's 4914, a decisive 30.5% advantage. That is a commanding lead in a modern graphics API workload. In Geekbench OpenCL, however, the MX130 turns the tables with 6102 against the MX230's 5739, a 5.9% deficit for the newer part. The average benchmark score across both tests lands at 6077 for the MX230 and 5508 for the MX130, meaning the MX230 holds an overall edge of roughly 10% despite losing one of the two individual tests.

The Vulkan result is the single most informative data point. A 30.5% delta in a low-level API test indicates that the MX230's architectural advantages translate directly into real-world graphics throughput. The MX130's OpenCL win, while real, is comparatively modest at 5.9%. When a newer architecture wins one test by 30.5% and loses the other by only 5.9%, the overall balance of performance clearly favors the MX230.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides additional context. The MX230 sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 6077. Its closest competitor, the NVIDIA RTX A400, scores 6078, a 0% delta. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6117, which is 0.7% higher. The Quadro P2000 sits 0.5% behind at 6049, and the AMD Radeon 760M trails by 1% at 6019. The MX130, at the 32nd percentile, averages 5508. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, scores 5501, just 0.1% behind. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 is 0.5% behind at 5483, while the AMD FirePro M4000 leads by 0.5% at 5537. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 trails by 0.7% at 5467. These figures show that the MX230 competes in a higher performance tier than the MX130, despite both being entry-level mobile parts.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures, and the gap between them is substantial. The MX230 uses the GP108 chip built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated at Samsung on a 14 nm process. The MX130 uses the GM108S chip on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process. That process difference, 14 nm versus 28 nm, is a full node generation apart. The MX230 packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. The MX130 contains 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, for a density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The MX230 therefore fits nearly twice the transistors per area, a direct consequence of the smaller process node.

Clock speeds also favor the MX230. Its base clock is 1519 MHz with a boost of 1531 MHz, while the MX130 runs at 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost. That is a 410 MHz difference at base and 342 MHz at boost. The memory clock is similarly higher on the MX230: 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, versus 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective on the MX130. Despite the MX130 having a wider memory bus width, both cards use a 64 bit bus and 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, so the MX230's higher memory clock gives it 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth versus 40.10 GB/s, a 19.9% advantage.

Shader configuration is where the MX130 actually leads. The MX130 has 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units, while the MX230 has 256 shading units and 16 TMUs. However, the MX130 has only 8 ROPs against the MX230's 16. The MX230's higher clocks and double ROP count produce a pixel rate of 24.50 GPixel/s, more than double the MX130's 9.512 GPixel/s. In texture rate, the MX130's extra TMUs give it a modest edge: 28.54 GTexel/s versus 24.50 GTexel/s for the MX230. In raw FP32 compute, the MX130 leads with 913.2 GFLOPS against 783.9 GFLOPS for the MX230. The MX230 does support FP16 at 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64), while the MX130 has no recorded FP16 capability. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the MX130 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Power consumption diverges sharply. The MX230 is rated at 10 W TDP, while the MX130 draws 30 W. That is a threefold difference, and it matters for thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is scarce. The MX230 achieves its higher average score at one-third the power draw, which points to the efficiency gains of the 14 nm Pascal process over the 28 nm Maxwell process. Both are integrated into the system as IGP parts with no power connectors, and both use a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The MX230 averages 6077 across its recorded benchmarks, while the MX130 averages 5508. The MX230 leads by roughly 10%.

Q: Why does the MX130 win the OpenCL test if the MX230 is generally faster?

A: The MX130 scores 6102 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5739 for the MX230, a 5.9% advantage. The MX130 has 384 shading units and 24 TMUs against 256 and 16 respectively, plus higher FP32 compute at 913.2 GFLOPS versus 783.9 GFLOPS.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the MX230 scores 6414 against 4914 for the MX130, a 30.5% lead. This is the largest performance delta recorded between the two parts.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The MX230 has a TDP of 10 W, while the MX130 has a TDP of 30 W. The MX230 delivers its higher average score at one-third the power draw.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The MX230 has 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth, while the MX130 has 40.10 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64 bit bus, but the MX230's memory runs at 6 Gbps effective versus 5 Gbps on the MX130.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX230 | NVIDIA GeForce MX130 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 14 nm (Samsung) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.3M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1519 MHz | 1109 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1531 MHz | 1189 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective |

| Bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 40.10 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 384 |

| TMUs | 16 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 24.50 GPixel/s | 9.512 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.50 GTexel/s | 28.54 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 783.9 GFLOPS | 913.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64) | None |

| TDP | 10 W | 30 W |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Release Date | 2019-02-20 | 2017-11-16 |

| Generation | GeForce MX (2xx) | GeForce MX (1xx) |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner: the NVIDIA GeForce MX230. It posts a higher average benchmark score (6077 versus 5508), a higher percentile ranking (35th versus 32nd), and a 30.5% blowout in Vulkan performance. It does so while consuming only 10 W, one-third of the MX130's 30 W TDP. The MX230 is also built on a smaller 14 nm process, packs more transistors, and supports a higher DirectX feature level. Its pixel rate of 24.50 GPixel/s is more than double the MX130's 9.512 GPixel/s, which matters for fill-rate-bound workloads.

The MX130 is not without merits. It holds a 5.9% lead in OpenCL, a 14.2% lead in FP32 compute (913.2 GFLOPS versus 783.9 GFLOPS), and a 16.5% lead in texture rate (28.54 GTexel/s versus 24.50 GTexel/s). It also has more shading units and TMUs. For compute-style workloads that favor raw shader throughput, the MX130 can pull ahead. But those advantages come at triple the power draw and with a much older architecture that lacks the MX230's modern feature set.

The MX230 is the better choice for anyone whose workloads lean on modern graphics APIs like Vulkan, where its 30.5% advantage is decisive. It is also the sensible pick for thermally constrained laptops, given its 10 W TDP. The MX130 remains viable only for specific compute tasks that scale with shader count and FP32 throughput, and even then the overall average score indicates the MX230 is the stronger part in general-purpose use.

Where Each One Wins

The MX230 wins in Vulkan-based workloads by 30.5%, in pixel throughput by a factor of 2.6 (24.50 GPixel/s versus 9.512 GPixel/s), and in memory bandwidth by 19.9% (48.06 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s). It also wins on efficiency, with a 10 W TDP versus 30 W, and on process technology, with 14 nm versus 28 nm. Its DirectX 12 (12_1) support is a feature-level advantage over the MX130's 12 (11_0). The MX230 is the part to choose for modern game rendering, high-resolution pixel work, and any scenario where power draw and heat are limiting factors.

The MX130 wins in OpenCL by 5.9%, in FP32 compute by 14.2% (913.2 GFLOPS versus 783.9 GFLOPS), and in texture rate by 16.5% (28.54 GTexel/s versus 24.50 GTexel/s). It has 384 shading units and 24 TMUs, compared to 256 and 16 on the MX230. These advantages make the MX130 preferable for shader-heavy compute tasks, texture sampling workloads, and applications that are locked to OpenCL. The MX130 also has a larger absolute number of execution units, which can matter in workloads that don't benefit from the MX230's higher clocks or ROP count. For users running legacy compute stacks that favor higher shader counts, the MX130's OpenCL margin is the only recorded benchmark where it beats the MX230.