NVIDIA GeForce MX130 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and NVIDIA Quadro M4000 are both end-of-life NVIDIA parts, but they occupy completely different segments of the GPU spectrum. The MX130 is a 28 nm Maxwell chip built for thin-and-light laptops, while the Quadro M4000 is a 28 nm Maxwell 2.0 professional workstation card. Despite their architectural kinship, the benchmark data reveals a chasm in raw performance, with the Quadro M4000 dominating in every measurable compute workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is brief but decisive, with the Quadro M4000 winning both available benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 against the MX130’s 6,102. That is a delta of -68.1% from the Quadro’s perspective, meaning the MX130 trails by roughly two-thirds. The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro M4000 posts 24,640 versus the MX130’s 4,914 — a delta of -80.1%. In this test, the Quadro M4000 is more than five times faster.

These are not marginal differences. The MX130’s average benchmark score sits at 5,508, while the Quadro M4000’s average is 5,467 — a mere 0.7% difference in aggregate. However, that aggregate figure is misleading because the MX130 only has two benchmark entries, while the Quadro M4000 has ten, including several Passmark tests that drag its average down. The Quadro M4000’s Geekbench scores are outliers on the high end, and its Vulkan result is particularly strong.

Looking at the wider pool, the MX130’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (avg score 5,501, delta 0.1%), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (avg 5,483, delta 0.5%), and the AMD FirePro M4000 (avg 5,537, delta -0.5%). The Quadro M4000’s rivals are similar: the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (delta -0.3%), the AMD Radeon 610M (delta 0.4%), the GeForce GTX 765M (delta -0.6%), and the MX130 itself (delta -0.7%). Both cards sit at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs, indicating they are mid-low performers overall, but the Quadro M4000’s peak scores in Geekbench are far above what its average suggests.

The Quadro M4000 also shows a much broader benchmark profile. Its Passmark G3D score is 6,680, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 2,660. It handles legacy APIs reasonably well, scoring 113 in Passmark DirectX 9, 49 in DirectX 11, 33 in DirectX 10, and 26 in DirectX 12. Its Passmark G2D score of 673 indicates decent 2D desktop performance. The MX130 has no comparable data, so its DirectX and 2D capabilities cannot be quantified here. What is clear is that in OpenCL and Vulkan — the two tests where both have data — the Quadro M4000 wins by enormous margins.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the Quadro M4000 is the superior performer in compute-heavy workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 213% higher than the MX130’s, and its Vulkan score is over 400% higher. If the task involves general-purpose GPU compute, OpenCL acceleration, or Vulkan rendering, the Quadro M4000 is the clear choice.

However, the MX130 is not without a case. It consumes only 30 W of power, has no power connectors, and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) designed for portable devices. The Quadro M4000, by contrast, draws 120 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, has a suggested PSU of 300 W, and occupies a single-slot 241 mm (9.5 inches) by 111 mm (4.4 inches) profile. The MX130 is a drop-in solution for laptops; the Quadro M4000 is a desktop workstation card with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

For users who need maximum compute throughput, the Quadro M4000 is the only rational pick. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus provide 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth, dwarfing the MX130’s 2 GB and 64-bit bus, which delivers just 40.10 GB/s. The Quadro M4000 also has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, versus the MX130’s 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These are not close specifications.

But for users who need a low-power GPU in a portable form factor, the MX130 is the only option that fits the bill. The Quadro M4000 cannot operate without a 6-pin connector and a 300 W PSU; the MX130 requires none of that. The verdict is not about which is better overall — it is about which fits the use case. For compute, choose the Quadro M4000. For integrated, low-power mobile use, the MX130 is the data-backed choice.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built by NVIDIA on a 28 nm TSMC process, but they diverge significantly in chip design. The MX130 uses the GM108S chip, part of the Maxwell architecture, with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip, part of the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical — 13.2M per mm² for the MX130 and 13.1M per mm² for the Quadro M4000 — which reflects the shared process node.

The memory subsystem is a major differentiator. The MX130 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 192.3 GB/s — nearly five times the bandwidth. The memory clock differs too: the MX130 runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the Quadro M4000 runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Compute resources scale accordingly. The MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 9.512 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 28.54 GTexel/s. Its FP32 throughput is 913.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 49.47 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 80.39 GTexel/s. Its FP32 throughput is 2.573 TFLOPS — nearly three times the MX130’s.

The bus interface also differs: the MX130 runs on PCIe 3.0 x4, while the Quadro M4000 runs on PCIe 3.0 x16. The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Both support Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro M4000’s display outputs are four DisplayPort 1.2 connectors, whereas the MX130’s outputs are portable-device dependent. The Quadro M4000’s predecessor is Quadro Kepler and its successor is Quadro Pascal; the MX130 has no listed predecessor or successor. The Quadro M4000 was released on 2015-06-28, over two years before the MX130’s 2017-11-16 release date.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 6,102. The Quadro M4000 wins with a delta of -68.1% from its perspective.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The MX130 has 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. The Quadro M4000 has 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Are these GPUs suitable for the same system?

A: No. The MX130 is an IGP with a 30 W TDP, no power connectors, and a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface — designed for portable devices. The Quadro M4000 is a single-slot 120 W card requiring a 1x 6-pin connector, a 300 W suggested PSU, and a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The MX130 uses the GM108S chip with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. Both are built on a 28 nm process.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro M4000 is far ahead, scoring 24,640 in Geekbench Vulkan versus the MX130’s 4,914. That is a delta of -80.1% from the Quadro’s perspective.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M4000 wins every performance metric where both cards have data. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is 68.1% ahead of the MX130. In Geekbench Vulkan, it is 80.1% ahead. Its memory bandwidth is 192.3 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s, and its FP32 throughput is 2.573 TFLOPS versus 913.2 GFLOPS. It also has a 12_1 DirectX feature level, which is higher than the MX130’s 11_0. The Quadro M4000 is the winner for any workload that stresses compute, memory throughput, or modern API support.

The MX130 wins on power and integration. It draws 30 W versus the Quadro M4000’s 120 W, requires no power connectors, and needs no external PSU. It is an IGP, meaning it can be soldered into laptops and ultra-portables, whereas the Quadro M4000 is a 241 mm (9.5 inches) by 111 mm (4.4 inches) single-slot expansion card. The MX130’s display outputs are portable-device dependent, making it flexible for mobile form factors. Its PCIe 3.0 x4 interface is sufficient for an integrated part, and its 2 GB of GDDR5 is adequate for basic graphics tasks.

The use-case split is stark. For desktop workstation users running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Quadro M4000 is the only choice — it has 8 GB of memory, a 256-bit bus, and four DisplayPort outputs. For mobile users who need a discrete-class GPU without adding bulk or power draw, the MX130 is the sensible option. Neither card is a winner in the abstract; their strengths are tied to the systems they are designed for. The data shows the Quadro M4000 is a compute powerhouse, while the MX130 is an efficiency-focused mobile part.