NVIDIA GeForce MX130 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the clear performance leader in this comparison. Benchmark results show it winning both recorded head-to-head tests, with a decisive 41.7% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan and an 11.7% edge in Geekbench OpenCL. The GeForce MX130, by contrast, is a lower-power mobile part that trails in every measured workload. The database places the Quadro K4000 at the 34th percentile among all GPUs, while the MX130 sits at the 32nd percentile. That two-point gap may seem small, but the actual score differential is substantial: 5,982 average versus 5,508 average, a gap of 474 points.

The Quadro K4000 is the choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput and graphics API performance. Its Kepler architecture delivers higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput. The MX130 is the choice for low-power portable systems where the 30 W TDP and lack of external power connectors matter more than peak performance. The data shows no scenario where the MX130 wins a benchmark, so the decision hinges entirely on power constraints versus performance demands.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4000 wins in every single benchmark category recorded. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 6,816 versus 6,102 for the MX130, a 714-point difference. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens dramatically: 6,964 versus 4,914, a 2,050-point difference. The Vulkan result is particularly telling, as it shows the K4000 handling modern graphics API workloads with far greater efficiency.

The MX130 has no benchmark wins. Its only advantage lies in operational characteristics: a 30 W TDP versus 80 W, no power connector requirement, and an IGP form factor that suits thin laptops. The Quadro K4000 requires a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU, making it unsuitable for battery-powered devices. The MX130 also uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the K4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, though this bus advantage does not translate into benchmark victories for the mobile part.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and generations. The Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip built on Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The MX130 uses the GM108S chip on Maxwell architecture, also 28 nm at TSMC, but with 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 13.2M per mm².

The compute resources differ sharply. The K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That means the K4000 offers double the shading units, 2.67 times the TMUs, and three times the ROPs. These structural advantages explain the performance gap: the K4000 reaches 1,244.2 GFLOPS FP32, 51.84 GTexel/s texture rate, and 12.96 GPixel/s pixel rate. The MX130 reaches 913.2 GFLOPS, 28.54 GTexel/s, and 9.512 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture also diverges. The K4000 uses 3 GB GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 134.8 GB/s bandwidth. The MX130 uses 2 GB GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 40.10 GB/s. That 3.36 times bandwidth advantage for the K4000 is a major factor in its Vulkan and OpenCL dominance. The K4000 also supports more display outputs: 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the MX130 relies on portable device dependent outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher average benchmark scores?

A: The Quadro K4000 averages 5,982 across all recorded tests, while the MX130 averages 5,508. The K4000 sits at the 34th percentile versus the MX130's 32nd.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan?

A: The K4000 scores 6,964 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 4,914 for the MX130, a delta of 41.7% in favor of the Quadro part.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Quadro K4000 has an 80 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector with a 250 W suggested PSU. The MX130 has a 30 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The K4000 offers 134.8 GB/s across a 192-bit bus with 3 GB GDDR5. The MX130 offers 40.10 GB/s across a 64-bit bus with 2 GB GDDR5.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K4000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the MX130 supports Vulkan 1.4. The newer Vulkan version on the MX130 does not translate into better Vulkan performance.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock rates?

A: The MX130 has explicit base and boost clocks of 1,109 MHz and 1,189 MHz. The K4000 does not list base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 1,404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective). The MX130 memory runs at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the Quadro K4000 scoring 6,816 against 6,102 for the MX130, a delta of 11.7%. This result reflects the K4000's larger compute core count and wider memory bus. The MX130 does manage to stay within striking distance in this workload, likely due to its higher transistor density and newer architecture generation. However, the K4000 still wins by a comfortable margin.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is where the gap becomes enormous. The K4000 scores 6,964, while the MX130 manages only 4,914. That is a 41.7% delta, the largest single advantage in any recorded metric. Vulkan workloads tend to stress memory bandwidth and ROP throughput, both of which heavily favor the K4000. The MX130's 64-bit memory bus and 8 ROPs become severe bottlenecks in this API.

The average benchmark scores tell the same story. The K4000's nearest rivals include the Quadro K4000M at 5,986 (0.1% below), AMD FirePro W4100 at 5,987 (0.1% below), AMD Radeon HD 8750M at 5,970 (0.2% above), and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996 (0.2% below). The MX130's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 765M at 5,501 (0.1% below), AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5,483 (0.5% below), AMD FirePro M4000 at 5,537 (0.5% above), and Quadro M4000 at 5,467 (0.7% above). The K4000 competes in a slightly higher performance tier despite its older release date.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two GPUs differ.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 | NVIDIA GeForce MX130 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |

| Chip | GK106 | GM108S |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) | GeForce MX (1xx) |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1,109 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1,189 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1,404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) | 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 3 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 134.8 GB/s | 40.10 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 384 |

| TMUs | 64 | 24 |

| ROPs | 24 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.96 GPixel/s | 9.512 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 51.84 GTexel/s | 28.54 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,244.2 GFLOPS | 913.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 80 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Launch MSRP | 1,269 USD | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2017-11-16 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | Not listed |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | Not listed |

| Dimensions | 241 mm length, 111 mm height | Not listed |

The K4000 was released in February 2013 with a launch MSRP of 1,269 USD, while the MX130 arrived in November 2017 with no listed launch MSRP. The K4000 is end-of-life, as is the MX130. Both use TSMC's 28 nm process. The K4000 has a predecessor (Quadro Fermi) and successor (Quadro Maxwell); the MX130 has neither listed. The K4000 measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the MX130 has no listed dimensions due to its integrated nature. The MX130 supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.175), but this does not overcome its hardware limitations in benchmark performance.