NVIDIA GeForce MX130 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro K620M and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 is a study in close generational competition. Based on the recorded benchmark data, the GeForce MX130 emerges as the stronger performer in the single shared test, taking a narrow victory in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 6102 versus the Quadro K620M’s 5957, a delta of 2.4 percent. However, the story is not about outright dominance; it is about suitability and context.

The Quadro K620M, with its “Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M)” generation label, is aimed squarely at mobile professional workstations, while the MX130, from the “GeForce MX (1xx)” family, is a consumer-class mobile part. The data suggests the MX130 is the better choice for users prioritizing raw compute throughput in OpenCL workloads, especially given its higher clock speeds and faster memory. The Quadro, meanwhile, holds its own in the professional sphere, but the benchmark results do not show it winning a single head-to-head test against the MX130.

For a buyer deciding between the two today, the MX130 is the logical pick for general-purpose performance and any task that leverages OpenCL acceleration, as it posts the higher score in the only direct comparison available. The Quadro K620M, while technically capable, offers no performance advantage in this data and is positioned for legacy professional systems where its driver certification and form factor might matter. However, with both parts marked as end-of-life, the choice is likely dictated by existing hardware rather than new purchases. The verdict from the numbers is clear: the MX130 wins the performance crown, but the Quadro remains a viable option for those locked into its specific platform.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share a surprisingly similar foundation. The database shows that both the NVIDIA Quadro K620M and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 are built on the same GM108S chip, utilizing the Maxwell architecture, and are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Both integrate 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding an identical transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. This commonality means that the core architectural DNA is the same, but the implementation diverges in key areas.

The most significant architectural difference lies in the memory subsystem. The Quadro K620M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 16.02 GB/s. The MX130, in contrast, employs 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 64-bit bus, but its bandwidth jumps to 40.10 GB/s. This is a substantial gap: the MX130 offers roughly 2.5 times the memory bandwidth of the Quadro, which directly impacts any data-intensive workload. The memory clock also differs, with the Quadro running at 2 Gbps effective and the MX130 at 5 Gbps effective.

Clock speeds further separate the two. The Quadro K620M has a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The MX130 operates at a higher base of 1109 MHz and boosts to 1189 MHz. While the shading unit count is identical at 384, the texture mapping units (TMUs) differ: the Quadro has 16 TMUs, while the MX130 has 24. The raster operation processors (ROPs) are the same at 8. This TMU disparity, combined with higher clocks, leads to different compute rates. The Quadro’s texture rate is 17.98 GTexel/s, while the MX130 achieves 28.54 GTexel/s, a clear architectural advantage for the consumer part.

The bus interface also sets them apart. The Quadro uses an MXM-A (3.0) interface and is described as an “MXM Module,” whereas the MX130 is an “IGP” with a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface. Both share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The power envelope is identical at 30 W TDP, and both require no external power connectors. In essence, the architecture is the same silicon, but the MX130 is configured with faster memory, more TMUs, and higher clocks, making it a more aggressively tuned variant.

Where Each One Wins

The data provides only a single head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, and it is the GeForce MX130 that takes the win. This test measures compute performance across a range of tasks, and the MX130’s score of 6102 outstrips the Quadro K620M’s 5957 by 2.4 percent. This suggests that in any OpenCL-accelerated workload, such as video encoding filters, physics simulations, or image processing, the MX130 is the faster option.

The Quadro K620M, however, has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its only recorded score is the same Geekbench OpenCL result, and it loses that test. This does not mean the Quadro is without merit; rather, the data shows it is not the performance leader. The Quadro’s strengths, if any, lie outside the measured metrics. Its generation label, “Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M),” indicates a lineage of professional mobile GPUs, which typically come with certified drivers for specific CAD or DCC applications. But the raw benchmark numbers do not reflect a win for the Quadro anywhere.

For use-case splitting, the MX130 is the winner for anyone running OpenCL-based software where raw compute scores matter. The Quadro K620M might still be relevant in legacy professional laptops where its MXM form factor and driver ecosystem are required, but the recorded data does not support a performance-based argument for it. The MX130, with its higher bandwidth and texture throughput, is simply the more capable compute part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 6102, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957. The MX130 leads by 2.4 percent.

Q: Do the two GPUs share the same chip?

A: Yes, both are based on the GM108S chip with the Maxwell architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro K620M has 16.02 GB/s bandwidth with DDR3 memory, while the MX130 has 40.10 GB/s with GDDR5 memory. The MX130’s bandwidth is significantly higher.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The Quadro K620M has a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost of 1124 MHz. The MX130 runs at a base of 1109 MHz and a boost of 1189 MHz.

Q: Are the shading unit counts identical?

A: Yes, both GPUs have 384 shading units. However, the MX130 has 24 TMUs versus the Quadro’s 16, and both have 8 ROPs.

Q: What is the TDP for each GPU?

A: Both the Quadro K620M and the GeForce MX130 have a TDP of 30 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 posts a score of 6102, beating the NVIDIA Quadro K620M’s 5957. The delta is 2.4 percent. This is a modest but clear victory. To put it in context, the Quadro K620M’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon HD 8730M with an average score of 5955, showing the Quadro sits right at that performance level. The MX130, meanwhile, is 0.1 percent ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, which scores 5501 in its own average, though that comparison is not direct since the MX130’s OpenCL score is higher. The MX130’s win over the Quadro is consistent with its higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth.

The biggest win for the MX130 is not just the score itself but the margin in memory bandwidth, which is 40.10 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s, and texture rate, 28.54 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. These differences explain the benchmark outcome. The Quadro’s only recorded score, 5957, places it in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX130’s OpenCL score of 6102 is its peak, but its average benchmark score is 5508, pulling it down to the 32nd percentile. This suggests the MX130’s OpenCL result is its strongest showing, whereas the Quadro’s single score is its only data point.

Specification Differences

The specification table reveals several differences between the two GPUs, all stemming from the same base chip.

Clock Speeds: The Quadro K620M has a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost of 1124 MHz. The MX130 is faster, with a base of 1109 MHz and a boost of 1189 MHz.

Memory: The Quadro uses 2 GB of DDR3 with a 64-bit bus and 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. The MX130 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 64-bit bus and 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. The effective memory clock is 2 Gbps for the Quadro and 5 Gbps for the MX130.

Texture Mapping Units: The Quadro has 16 TMUs, while the MX130 has 24 TMUs. Both have 384 shading units and 8 ROPs.

Texture and Pixel Rates: The Quadro’s texture rate is 17.98 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is 8.992 GPixel/s. The MX130 achieves a texture rate of 28.54 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 9.512 GPixel/s.

Compute Performance: The Quadro’s FP32 throughput is 863.2 GFLOPS, while the MX130 reaches 913.2 GFLOPS.

Form Factor and Interface: The Quadro is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface. The MX130 is an IGP with a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface.

Generation and Release: The Quadro is from the “Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M)” generation, released in 2015. The MX130 is from the “GeForce MX (1xx)” generation, released in 2017. Both are end-of-life and have no launch MSRP recorded.

APIs: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both. Power connectors are none for both, and both have a 30 W TDP.