NVIDIA GeForce MX130 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce MX130 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M

The GeForce MX130 is a Maxwell-based mobile chip from 2017, built for thin-and-light laptops, while the Quadro 4000M is a Fermi-era professional mobile GPU from 2011, designed for workstation-class notebooks. The data shows a clear generational gap: the MX130 wins the only shared benchmark by 17.1%, yet the Quadro 4000M still holds advantages in memory bandwidth, texture units, and ROPs that matter for specific workloads. Both are end-of-life products, but they target completely different use cases. The MX130 sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000M ranks at the 30th percentile, making them closely matched overall despite the age difference.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GeForce MX130 scores 6102 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro 4000M scores 5211. The MX130 wins by 17.1%, a substantial margin that reflects its newer architecture and higher clock speeds.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The MX130 has an average benchmark score of 5508, while the Quadro 4000M averages 5211. The MX130 leads by roughly 5.7%, consistent with its OpenCL advantage.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each card offer?

A: The Quadro 4000M provides 80.00 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the MX130 offers 40.10 GB/s over a 64-bit bus. The Quadro 4000M has exactly double the bandwidth, a critical advantage for memory-intensive tasks.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The MX130 has 384 shading units, while the Quadro 4000M has 336. Despite having fewer cores, the Quadro 4000M uses a wider memory interface and more texture units to compensate.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MX130 has a 30 W TDP and uses no power connectors, fitting an IGP slot. The Quadro 4000M has a 100 W TDP and requires an MXM module, making it a far more power-hungry component.

Q: Do both support modern APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The MX130 adds Vulkan 1.4 support, while the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support listed.

Architecture Differences

The GeForce MX130 is built on the GM108S chip using NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The Quadro 4000M, by contrast, uses the GF104 chip with the older Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process. That chip contains 1,950 million transistors across a much larger 332 mm² die, with a density of only 5.9M per mm². The Maxwell chip is newer, smaller, and more efficient per transistor, while the Fermi chip is physically larger and older.

The MX130 runs at a base clock of 1109 MHz with a boost clock of 1189 MHz, while the Quadro 4000M has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory clocking also differs significantly: the MX130 uses 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the Quadro 4000M runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The MX130's higher memory clock compensates somewhat for its narrower 64-bit bus, but the Quadro 4000M's 256-bit bus provides much higher raw bandwidth.

Shading units favor the MX130 at 384 versus 336, but the Quadro 4000M counters with 56 texture mapping units (TMUs) versus 24, and 32 raster operation units (ROPs) versus 8. The Quadro 4000M also has a significantly higher pixel rate of 6.650 GPixel/s versus 9.512 GPixel/s for the MX130—wait, that is reversed: the MX130 actually has the higher pixel rate. The texture rates are close: 28.54 GTexel/s for the MX130 versus 26.60 GTexel/s for the Quadro 4000M. FP32 compute favors the MX130 at 913.2 GFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS.

The MX130 is designed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with PCIe 3.0 x4, while the Quadro 4000M uses an MXM-B (3.0) module interface. Both have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The MX130's release date is 2017-11-16, while the Quadro 4000M launched on 2011-02-21, a difference of over six years. The Quadro 4000M's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M, while the MX130 has no listed predecessor or successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the MX130 scores 6102 against the Quadro 4000M's 5211. That is a 17.1% win for the MX130, a decisive margin that underscores the architectural leap from Fermi to Maxwell. In practical terms, this means the MX130 handles general-purpose compute workloads—like OpenCL-accelerated filters or physics calculations—noticeably faster than the Quadro 4000M.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The MX130's closest competitor is the GeForce GTX 765M, which scores 5501, just 0.1% behind. The AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537, 0.5% ahead of the MX130, while the AMD Radeon R7 M440 trails by 0.5% at 5483. The Quadro M4000 sits at 5467, 0.7% behind. This places the MX130 in a tight cluster of mobile GPUs from the same era.

The Quadro 4000M's rivals tell a similar story. The GeForce GTX 760M scores 5236, 0.5% ahead, while the GeForce 940M scores 5284, 1.4% ahead. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X trails by 1% at 5161, and the Quadro K3100M is 1.1% behind at 5154. The Quadro 4000M is essentially competitive with these mid-range mobile parts from later generations, despite being much older.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the OpenCL result. The MX130 averages 5508, while the Quadro 4000M averages 5211. The MX130's nearest rivals all sit within 0.7% of its average score, indicating that this is a typical performance tier for mid-range mobile GPUs of its generation. The Quadro 4000M's average places it just below those same rivals, suggesting it has aged less gracefully.

Specification Differences

| Specification | GeForce MX130 | Quadro 4000M |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |

| Process node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 1,950 million |

| Die size | 77 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor density | 13.2M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1109 MHz | (not listed) |

| Boost clock | 1189 MHz | (not listed) |

| Memory clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 40.10 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading units | 384 | 336 |

| TMUs | 24 | 56 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel rate | 9.512 GPixel/s | 6.650 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 28.54 GTexel/s | 26.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 913.2 GFLOPS | 638.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | 100 W |

| Slot width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Vulkan support | 1.4 | (not listed) |

| Release date | 2017-11-16 | 2011-02-21 |

The MX130 uses half the memory bus width but nearly double the memory clock, yet the Quadro 4000M still wins on bandwidth by exactly 2x. The MX130 has more shading units and higher FP32 throughput, but the Quadro 4000M has more than twice the TMUs and four times the ROPs. The Quadro 4000M's pixel rate is lower despite more ROPs, which suggests its clock speeds are significantly lower than the MX130's.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for general compute and modern workloads: the GeForce MX130. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 17.1%, has a higher average benchmark score (5508 versus 5211), and delivers 43% more FP32 compute (913.2 GFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS). Its 30 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, whereas the Quadro 4000M's 100 W TDP and MXM module design require a larger chassis with active cooling.

However, the Quadro 4000M is not without merit. Its 80.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is double the MX130's, and its 56 TMUs and 32 ROPs suggest it was built for texture-heavy and rasterization-heavy tasks. In workloads that are bandwidth-bound or rely heavily on texture filtering, the Quadro 4000M could plausibly perform competitively despite its lower raw compute. Its 256-bit bus also allows it to handle larger data sets more efficiently.

The percentile rankings reinforce the MX130's edge: it sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000M sits at the 30th. That two-percentile gap is small, meaning neither card is dramatically better than the other in the broader GPU landscape. But within this specific comparison, the MX130 is the better all-rounder for modern applications, while the Quadro 4000M remains a niche part for legacy workstation tasks.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce MX130 wins in:

• OpenCL compute performance: 6102 versus 5211, a 17.1% lead.
• Average benchmark score: 5508 versus 5211, a 5.7% advantage.
• FP32 throughput: 913.2 GFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS.
• Pixel fill rate: 9.512 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s.
• Efficiency: 30 W TDP versus 100 W TDP, a 70% reduction in power draw.
• Modern API support: Vulkan 1.4 versus none listed.
• Shading units: 384 versus 336, a 14.3% advantage.
• Release date: 2017 versus 2011, meaning better driver support and compatibility with newer software.

NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins in:

• Memory bandwidth: 80.00 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s, exactly double.
• Texture mapping units: 56 versus 24, more than double.
• Raster operations units: 32 versus 8, exactly four times as many.
• Memory bus width: 256 bit versus 64 bit, four times wider.
• Texture rate: 26.60 GTexel/s versus 28.54 GTexel/s—actually, the MX130 wins here, so the Quadro 4000M's advantage is only theoretical based on TMU count.
• Transistor count: 1,950 million versus 1,020 million, though this is due to the older, less dense process.

For a builder choosing between these two today, the MX130 is the practical pick for everyday use, light gaming, and compute. The Quadro 4000M only makes sense if you have a specific legacy workstation task that leverages its memory bandwidth and ROP-heavy design—and you have the power budget and chassis space to accommodate it.