NVIDIA GeForce MX130 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and NVIDIA Quadro K3100M represent two distinct mobile GPU strategies from different eras of NVIDIA’s lineup. The MX130, a 2017 Maxwell-based part, is a low-power integrated-class solution, while the K3100M, a 2013 Kepler-based professional mobile workstation card, targets sustained compute and memory bandwidth. Benchmark data shows a fragmented picture: the K3100M wins both direct head-to-head tests, yet the MX130 holds a higher average benchmark score and better overall percentile ranking. The verdict depends on which metric matters most: raw memory throughput and shading capacity favor the Quadro, while aggregated Geekbench results slightly favor the GeForce.

The Verdict

The data indicates the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the stronger choice for users prioritizing raw computational throughput and memory bandwidth. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K3100M scores 6154 against the MX130’s 6102, a narrow 0.8% margin. The gap widens significantly in Geekbench Vulkan, where the K3100M posts 5484 versus 4914, a substantial 10.4% advantage. The Quadro’s 4 GB memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, dwarfing the MX130’s 2 GB on a 64-bit bus at 40.10 GB/s. For applications that saturate memory or scale with shading units, the K3100M’s 768 shading units and 64 texture mapping units (TMUs) provide a clear structural advantage over the MX130’s 384 shading units and 24 TMUs.

However, the MX130 is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 5508 exceeds the K3100M’s 5154, and it holds a 32nd percentile ranking across all GPUs compared to the K3100M’s 30th. The MX130 also achieves higher clock speeds, with a base of 1109 MHz and boost of 1189 MHz, versus the K3100M’s fixed 706 MHz. In the OpenCL test, the two are virtually tied, suggesting the MX130’s architectural efficiency partially compensates for its smaller die. The MX130 also consumes only 30 W versus the K3100M’s 75 W, making it the sensible option for thin-and-light systems where thermal headroom is limited.

For mobile workstation users requiring professional-grade reliability and sustained memory performance, the K3100M is the data-backed pick. For general-purpose multimedia tasks in a compact chassis, the MX130’s higher average score and lower power draw make it the pragmatic choice. The K3100M wins the head-to-head count 2–0, but the MX130’s aggregate statistics tell a story of efficiency over brute force.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins narrowly, scoring 6154 against the GeForce MX130’s 6102. The delta is only 0.8%, indicating near-parity in this compute workload.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: The Quadro K3100M leads by 10.4% in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 5484 versus the MX130’s 4914. This is the largest performance difference recorded in the head-to-head data.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K3100M has vastly higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s, thanks to a 256-bit memory bus and 4 GB of GDDR5. The MX130 offers 40.10 GB/s over a 64-bit bus with 2 GB.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MX130 is rated at 30 W TDP, while the K3100M is rated at 75 W TDP. This 45 W difference makes the MX130 far more suitable for power-constrained designs.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The MX130 has a higher average benchmark score of 5508, while the K3100M averages 5154. This puts the MX130 at the 32nd percentile versus the K3100M’s 30th percentile across all GPUs.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, exactly double the MX130’s 384. It also has 64 TMUs versus the MX130’s 24, and 32 ROPs versus 8.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different NVIDIA architectures, which explains much of their behavioral divergence. The GeForce MX130 uses the GM108S chip, based on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip integrates 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. Maxwell was engineered for efficiency, favoring higher clocks and lower power over raw transistor counts. The MX130’s base clock of 1109 MHz and boost of 1189 MHz reflect this design philosophy, as does its 30 W TDP.

In contrast, the Quadro K3100M employs the GK104 chip, based on the older Kepler architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. This is a much larger chip: 3,540 million transistors spread across 294 mm², for a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. Kepler prioritized scale over clock speed, and the K3100M’s fixed 706 MHz clock demonstrates that trade-off. The K3100M’s 75 W TDP is 150% higher than the MX130’s, a direct consequence of the larger die and more execution resources.

The shading and texture resources differ massively. The K3100M packs 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, against the MX130’s 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This gives the Quadro a 2x advantage in shading units and TMUs, and a 4x advantage in ROPs. Pixel rate and texture rate follow suit: the K3100M achieves 11.30 GPixel/s and 45.18 GTexel/s, versus the MX130’s 9.512 GPixel/s and 28.54 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is also higher on the Quadro at 1,084.4 GFLOPS versus 913.2 GFLOPS.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Vulkan support differs: the MX130 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the K3100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The K3100M is part of the Quadro Kepler-M generation, with a predecessor in Quadro Fermi-M and a successor in Quadro Maxwell-M. The MX130 belongs to the GeForce MX (1xx) generation, with no listed predecessor or successor. The MX130 is an IGP form factor, while the K3100M is an MXM module, reflecting their target platforms.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is memory configuration. The K3100M offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX130 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, with 40.10 GB/s. This is a 2.5x bandwidth advantage for the Quadro, which is critical for large frame buffers and bandwidth-hungry workloads. Memory clock speeds also differ: the MX130 runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the K3100M runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds favor the MX130 significantly. Its base clock of 1109 MHz and boost of 1189 MHz are far above the K3100M’s static 706 MHz. This explains how the smaller Maxwell chip keeps pace in certain benchmarks despite having fewer resources. The K3100M has no boost clock; it runs at a constant 706 MHz. The MX130’s transistor density is also higher at 13.2M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm², indicating a more compact design.

Power and form factor diverge sharply. The MX130 is rated at 30 W TDP and uses an IGP slot width, while the K3100M draws 75 W and uses an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The MX130 connects via PCIe 3.0 x4, whereas the K3100M uses the MXM-B interface. Both have no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Production status is end-of-life for both, but release dates differ: the MX130 launched on 2017-11-16, while the K3100M launched on 2013-07-22.

The K3100M’s pixel rate of 11.30 GPixel/s and texture rate of 45.18 GTexel/s outpace the MX130’s 9.512 GPixel/s and 28.54 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is also higher on the Quadro at 1,084.4 GFLOPS versus 913.2 GFLOPS. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both lack FP16 support. The MX130’s average benchmark score of 5508 is higher than the K3100M’s 5154, and its percentile ranking of 32 beats the K3100M’s 30.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data includes two Geekbench tests, and the Quadro K3100M wins both. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the K3100M scores 6154 against the MX130’s 6102. The delta is just 0.8%, making this a statistical tie. This result is surprising given the K3100M’s 2x shading unit count, but the MX130’s higher clocks and newer Maxwell architecture likely close the gap. The MX130’s boost clock of 1189 MHz versus the K3100M’s 706 MHz gives it a frequency advantage of roughly 68%, which partially offsets the Quadro’s resource advantage.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a decisive win for the K3100M. It scores 5484, which is 10.4% higher than the MX130’s 4914. This is the largest margin in any benchmark between the two. Vulkan workloads tend to scale well with memory bandwidth and raw execution resources, both of which favor the K3100M. Its 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and 768 shading units provide a structural advantage that clock speed cannot overcome. The MX130’s 4x narrower memory bus is a severe bottleneck in this API.

The K3100M’s 2–0 win count in head-to-head tests contrasts with its lower average benchmark score. This suggests that the K3100M excels in specific API-bound workloads, while the MX130 performs better across a broader range of aggregated tests. The MX130’s nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 765M, averages 5501, nearly identical to the MX130’s 5508. The K3100M’s nearest rival, the Radeon R7 M260X, averages 5161, which is close to its 5154. These rival comparisons contextualize the two GPUs: the MX130 sits in a slightly higher performance tier despite losing the direct head-to-head.

The Vulkan delta of 10.4% is the standout metric. It represents a substantial real-world difference for applications leveraging Vulkan’s low-level access. The OpenCL delta of 0.8% is negligible, indicating that for OpenCL compute tasks, the two GPUs are interchangeable. The MX130’s higher average score of 5508 versus 5154 suggests that in typical mixed workloads, it may deliver more consistent performance. However, for memory-bound scenarios, the K3100M’s 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is unmatched by the MX130’s 40.10 GB/s. The data paints a clear picture: the K3100M is the performance leader in direct comparison, but the MX130 holds its own in aggregate metrics.