NVIDIA GeForce MX130 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M dominates the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 in every recorded test. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M5000M scores 22,920 against the MX130’s 6,102, a 275.6% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further: 24,875 versus 4,914, which translates to a 406.2% lead for the Quadro.

These are not marginal wins. The Quadro M5000M delivers more than three times the OpenCL throughput and more than five times the Vulkan performance of the MX130. For compute-heavy workloads, the difference is decisive. The Vulkan result is particularly telling, as it reflects the Quadro’s substantially larger execution resource pool, which scales far beyond what a small mobile graphics part can offer.

The average benchmark score reinforces the same conclusion. The Quadro M5000M sits at 6,481 average across all recorded tests, while the MX130 trails at 5,508. That is a 17.7% overall gap, but the head-to-head metrics show the real story: in the two tests where both GPUs share a common workload, the Quadro wins outright. The MX130 has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the Quadro M5000M’s Passmark results are extensive: 7,062 in G3D, 2,756 in GPU Compute, 476 in G2D, 119 in DirectX 9, 54 in DirectX 11, 35 in DirectX 10, and 29 in DirectX 12. The MX130’s recorded benchmarks only include the two Geekbench tests, which means the database has no Passmark entries for it. Still, the Geekbench results alone establish the hierarchy clearly.

Percentile rankings confirm the placement. The Quadro M5000M sits at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX130 rests at the 32nd percentile. That five-point gap might seem modest, but the raw scores tell a different story. The Quadro’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (0.2% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (0.5% behind), and the Intel UHD Graphics P750 (1.1% behind). The MX130’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (0.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (0.5% ahead), the AMD FirePro M4000 (0.5% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (0.7% ahead). Both cards cluster tightly with their peers, but the Quadro’s peer group operates at a higher absolute performance level.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is the far stronger GPU. Anyone choosing between these two for compute, graphics, or any performance-sensitive task should select the Quadro without hesitation. The 275.6% OpenCL lead and the 406.2% Vulkan lead are not close calls; they are generational gaps.

The MX130, by contrast, is positioned for light duty. Its 30 W power envelope and integrated form factor make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals matter more than raw throughput. But the benchmark results show it cannot compete with the Quadro in any measured workload.

For professional workloads, the Quadro M5000M’s 8 GB GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus width provide a clear advantage over the MX130’s 2 GB and 64-bit bus. The Quadro also carries a Maxwell 2.0 architecture label, while the MX130 uses a plainer Maxwell designation, and the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the MX130’s DirectX 12 (11_0). These are not trivial differences for applications that rely on advanced rendering features.

The MX130 does have one thing in its favor: efficiency. At 30 W versus 100 W, it draws far less power. For a user who prioritizes battery life and portability, the MX130 makes sense. But the question here is about performance, and the recorded data shows the Quadro M5000M wins every benchmark head-to-head.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share a 28 nm process node and TSMC as the foundry, but the silicon designs diverge sharply. The Quadro M5000M uses the GM204 chip, built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The MX130 uses the GM108S chip, also Maxwell-based but without the 2.0 designation, with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical: 13.1M per mm² for the Quadro, 13.2M per mm² for the MX130. The difference is sheer scale.

The Quadro packs 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines. The MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 4x advantage in shading units, a 4x advantage in TMUs, and an 8x advantage in ROPs for the Quadro. These numbers explain the performance gaps directly: more parallel units means more work per clock.

Memory architecture reinforces the divide. The Quadro uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX130 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 40.10 GB/s. The Quadro has exactly four times the memory bandwidth. For texture-heavy scenes or large datasets, that bandwidth difference is crippling for the MX130.

Clock speeds tell a mixed story. The MX130 runs at 1,109 MHz base and 1,189 MHz boost, while the Quadro runs at 962 MHz base and 1,051 MHz boost. The MX130 has higher clocks, but that does not compensate for the massive resource deficit. The Quadro’s pixel rate is 67.26 GPixel/s versus 9.512 GPixel/s for the MX130. Texture rate is 100.9 GTexel/s versus 28.54 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.229 TFLOPS versus 913.2 GFLOPS. The MX130’s clock advantage is irrelevant against those ratios.

Both GPUs support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. DirectX support differs: the Quadro lists 12 (12_1), the MX130 lists 12 (11_0). Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both use portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows a clear separation between the two parts. The Quadro M5000M has 8 GB memory, the MX130 has 2 GB. The Quadro’s bus width is 256 bit, the MX130’s is 64 bit. Bandwidth is 160.4 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s. The Quadro has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs; the MX130 has 384, 24, and 8 respectively.

Power draw differs by 70 W: the Quadro is rated at 100 W, the MX130 at 30 W. The Quadro uses an MXM Module slot width with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the MX130 is an IGP with PCIe 3.0 x4. Both have no power connectors. The Quadro’s release date is August 17, 2015; the MX130’s is November 16, 2017. The Quadro is listed as end-of-life, as is the MX130. The Quadro has a predecessor (Quadro Kepler-M) and a successor (Quadro Pascal-M); the MX130 has neither listed.

The Quadro’s die is 398 mm², the MX130’s is 77 mm². Transistor count is 5,200 million versus 1,020 million. The Quadro’s FP32 output is 3.229 TFLOPS, the MX130’s is 913.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro’s pixel rate is 67.26 GPixel/s, the MX130’s is 9.512 GPixel/s. The Quadro’s texture rate is 100.9 GTexel/s, the MX130’s is 28.54 GTexel/s. Both have equal memory clock at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins with a score of 22,920 against the GeForce MX130’s 6,102, a 275.6% advantage.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins with a score of 24,875 against the GeForce MX130’s 4,914, a 406.2% advantage.

Q: How do their memory sizes compare?

A: The Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The MX130 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Quadro M5000M is rated at 100 W, while the MX130 is rated at 30 W, a 70 W difference in favor of the MX130’s efficiency.

Q: Do they support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: What are their percentile rankings?

A: The Quadro M5000M sits at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX130 sits at the 32nd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins in every performance metric recorded. Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan both go to the Quadro by wide margins. Its 8 GB memory capacity and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth make it the obvious choice for compute-heavy tasks, large textures, or any workload that benefits from high parallel throughput. The 3.229 TFLOPS FP32 rating is more than three times the MX130’s 913.2 GFLOPS, which means the Quadro is suited for rendering, simulation, and professional applications. Its 100 W TDP reflects a design that prioritizes output over efficiency.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 wins in power efficiency and form factor. At 30 W and an IGP slot width, it is built for compact laptops where thermal headroom is limited. Its higher base clock (1,109 MHz versus 962 MHz) and boost clock (1,189 MHz versus 1,051 MHz) show it can stretch its smaller resource pool, but that does not translate into competitive performance. The MX130 is a capable light-duty graphics solution for everyday tasks, but the recorded data offers no scenario where it outperforms the Quadro M5000M in a shared benchmark.

For users who need maximum compute throughput, the Quadro M5000M is the only choice. For users who need minimal power draw in a thin chassis, the MX130 is the pragmatic option. The database records two head-to-head tests, and the Quadro wins both. That is the entirety of the measured comparison.