NVIDIA GeForce MX130 vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M500M and NVIDIA GeForce MX130 are both entry-level mobile GPUs built on the same 28nm Maxwell architecture, but they target different use cases. The data shows they are extremely close in average compute performance, with the M500M's average benchmark score of 5604 sitting just 1.7% above the MX130's 5508. However, their individual workload results tell a more nuanced story, with the MX130 winning OpenCL performance and the M500M dominating in Vulkan.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M500M has an average benchmark score of 5604, which is 1.7% higher than the GeForce MX130's average score of 5508. Both sit at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs.

Q: How do they compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The GeForce MX130 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6102, beating the Quadro M500M's score of 5986 by 1.9%. This is a narrow margin, suggesting near-parity in general compute workloads.

Q: Which GPU performs better in Vulkan?

A: The Quadro M500M is clearly ahead in Vulkan, scoring 5222 compared to the MX130's 4914. This represents a significant 6.3% advantage for the Quadro in this API.

Q: Are these GPUs based on the same chip?

A: Yes, both use the GM108S chip from TSMC, built on a 28nm process with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. They share the same Maxwell architecture and transistor density of 13.2M per mm².

Q: What are the key memory differences?

A: The MX130 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, while the M500M uses 2 GB of DDR3 with only 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. Both have a 64-bit memory bus, but the MX130's memory is substantially faster.

Q: Do they have the same power requirements?

A: Yes, both have a 30 W TDP and require no power connectors. The M500M is an MXM module while the MX130 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture using the identical GM108S chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 28nm process. The transistor count is the same at 1,020 million, and the die size is identical at 77 mm², resulting in the same transistor density of 13.2M per mm². This is a fundamental similarity that explains their comparable performance levels.

The crucial architectural differences lie in memory configuration and texture processing. The Quadro M500M pairs its 2 GB of DDR3 memory with a 64-bit bus, yielding a modest 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. In contrast, the MX130 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 64-bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s — nearly three times the bandwidth. This memory speed difference is the single largest architectural gap between them.

Another key difference is in texture mapping units. The M500M has 16 TMUs, while the MX130 has 24 TMUs. This affects texture throughput: the M500M achieves 17.98 GTexel/s, while the MX130 reaches 28.54 GTexel/s. Both have 384 shading units and 8 ROPs, so pixel processing capability is similar, with the M500M at 8.992 GPixel/s and the MX130 at 9.512 GPixel/s.

Clock speeds also differ. The M500M runs at a base of 1029 MHz with a boost of 1124 MHz, while the MX130 runs higher at 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost. This gives the MX130 a small raw compute advantage of 913.2 GFLOPS FP32 versus the M500M's 863.2 GFLOPS. The memory clock differs as well: the M500M's DDR3 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the MX130's GDDR5 runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

The bus interface and form factor differ: the M500M uses an MXM-A (3.0) module, while the MX130 is an IGP with PCIe 3.0 x4. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both are end-of-life products. The M500M was released in April 2016 and has a predecessor in Quadro Kepler-M and successor in Quadro Pascal-M; the MX130 came later in November 2017 with no listed predecessor or successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a split decision. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GeForce MX130 takes the win with 6102 points against the Quadro M500M's 5986 points. That is a 1.9% delta in favor of the MX130, a narrow margin that falls within the range of run-to-run variance but is still a measurable lead.

The Vulkan test flips the result decisively. The Quadro M500M scores 5222, beating the MX130's 4914 by a substantial 6.3%. This is the largest performance gap in either direction, and it indicates that the Quadro's architecture handles Vulkan workloads significantly better despite its lower clock speeds and slower memory.

When contextualized against the nearest rivals, the picture sharpens. The M500M's 5604 average sits 1.2% above the AMD FirePro M4000 (5537), 1.5% below the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691), and 1.9% above the MX130. The MX130's 5508 average is just 0.1% above the GeForce GTX 765M (5501), 0.5% above the Radeon R7 M440 (5483), and 0.7% above the Quadro M4000 (5467). Both cards are clustered tightly with other entry-level mobile GPUs, but the M500M holds a slight edge in aggregate performance.

The MX130's OpenCL win is consistent with its higher texture rate (28.54 GTexel/s vs 17.98 GTexel/s) and faster FP32 throughput (913.2 GFLOPS vs 863.2 GFLOPS). The M500M's Vulkan lead is harder to explain from specs alone, but the data clearly shows it excels in this API, making it the better choice for Vulkan-based applications.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the NVIDIA Quadro M500M and NVIDIA GeForce MX130:

| Specification | Quadro M500M | GeForce MX130 |

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

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) | GeForce MX (1xx) |

| Base Clock | 1029 MHz | 1109 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 1189 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective | 1253 MHz / 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 40.10 GB/s |

| TMUs | 16 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.992 GPixel/s | 9.512 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.98 GTexel/s | 28.54 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 863.2 GFLOPS | 913.2 GFLOPS |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Release Date | 2016-04-26 | 2017-11-16 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler-M | None |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal-M | None |

Fields that are identical include the chip (GM108S), architecture (Maxwell), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistors (1,020 million), die size (77 mm²), transistor density (13.2M / mm²), shading units (384), ROPs (8), memory size (2 GB), memory bus width (64 bit), TDP (30 W), power connectors (None), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent), DirectX version (12 (11_0)), OpenGL version (4.6), Vulkan version (1.4), and production status (End-of-life).

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce MX130 wins in OpenCL compute with a score of 6102 versus 5986, a 1.9% advantage. It also wins on paper in raw specifications: higher base and boost clocks, faster GDDR5 memory with nearly triple the bandwidth (40.10 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s), more texture units (24 vs 16), higher texture rate (28.54 GTexel/s vs 17.98 GTexel/s), higher pixel rate (9.512 GPixel/s vs 8.992 GPixel/s), and higher FP32 performance (913.2 GFLOPS vs 863.2 GFLOPS). This makes it the better choice for general-purpose compute tasks, texture-heavy workloads, and any application that benefits from higher memory bandwidth.

The Quadro M500M wins in Vulkan performance with a score of 5222 versus 4914, a decisive 6.3% lead. It also has a higher average benchmark score overall (5604 vs 5508, a 1.7% delta). Despite its slower memory and lower clocks, the M500M's driver optimization or architectural implementation gives it a clear edge in Vulkan-based applications. For users running Vulkan workloads, the M500M is the stronger performer despite its older release date and lower specifications.

In the context of their nearest rivals, the M500M's position is slightly stronger. It sits 1.9% above the MX130, 1.2% above the FirePro M4000, and 2.9% above the GeForce GTX 765M in average score. The MX130's closest rival is the GTX 765M at just 0.1% difference, making it more evenly matched with its competition. The M500M's higher average score and Vulkan advantage make it the more compelling choice in aggregate, while the MX130's specification sheet is more impressive on paper.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear trade-off between these two GPUs. If Vulkan performance is a priority, the Quadro M500M is the definitive winner — its 6.3% lead in the Vulkan benchmark is the largest head-to-head gap recorded, and it carries the higher average benchmark score of 5604 versus 5508. The M500M also edges out the MX130 in the overall rankings, sitting 1.7% higher.

However, the GeForce MX130 is the better pick for OpenCL compute and for anyone who prioritizes raw specifications. Its GDDR5 memory provides 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth versus the M500M's 14.40 GB/s, a difference that will matter in memory-bound tasks. It also has higher clocks (1109 MHz base, 1189 MHz boost), more TMUs (24 vs 16), and higher FP32 throughput (913.2 GFLOPS vs 863.2 GFLOPS).

For a practical buyer, the choice depends on the workload. Users running Vulkan-based games or applications should choose the Quadro M500M without hesitation. Users doing OpenCL compute, texture-heavy rendering, or tasks that benefit from memory bandwidth should select the GeForce MX130. Both are end-of-life products with identical 30 W TDPs, so power consumption is not a differentiator. The M500M's MXM form factor and the MX130's IGP design may also influence compatibility, but the benchmark data shows the M500M as the slightly stronger all-around performer, with the MX130 winning only on OpenCL and specifications.