NVIDIA GeForce MX130 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 records an average benchmark score of 6049, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 5508. The Quadro P2000 sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the MX130's 32nd percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Quadro P2000 scores 20125 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 229.8% higher than the MX130's 6102. This is the smaller of the two gaps between the cards.

Q: Which GPU has a larger memory bus width?

A: The Quadro P2000 uses a 160-bit memory bus, while the MX130 uses a 64-bit bus. This contributes to the P2000's 140.2 GB/s memory bandwidth versus the MX130's 40.10 GB/s.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: No. The Quadro P2000 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP106 chip, while the MX130 uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip. The P2000 is fabricated on a 16 nm process, the MX130 on a 28 nm process.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The GP106 chip in the Quadro P2000 contains 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The GM108S chip in the MX130 contains 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Q: Which card supports a higher DirectX feature level?

A: The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the MX130 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to different architectural generations from NVIDIA. The Quadro P2000 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP106 chip fabricated by TSMC on a 16 nm process. The MX130 uses the older Maxwell architecture, built around the GM108S chip on a 28 nm process. This process node difference is substantial: the P2000 packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². The MX130's smaller chip contains 1,020 million transistors across 77 mm², for a density of 13.2M per mm². The Pascal chip is therefore both physically larger and significantly denser.

The compute configuration diverges sharply. The Quadro P2000 has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. Neither chip includes dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The P2000's pixel rate is 59.20 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 94.72 GTexel/s. The MX130's pixel rate is 9.512 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 28.54 GTexel/s. The P2000 delivers 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the MX130 delivers 913.2 GFLOPS.

The P2000 also supports FP16 at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a feature not listed for the MX130. Clock speeds show a different trade-off: the MX130 has a higher base clock at 1109 MHz versus 1076 MHz, but the P2000 boosts to 1480 MHz, well above the MX130's 1189 MHz boost. Memory architecture is another major split. The P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, reaching 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX130 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s. The P2000's memory clock is 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the MX130's is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

The bus interface differs as well: the P2000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the MX130 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. The P2000 is a single-slot card with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs; the MX130 is an integrated-class part with display outputs described as portable device dependent. The P2000 has a 75 W TDP and suggests a 250 W power supply, while the MX130 draws only 30 W and lists no suggested PSU. The P2000's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta; the MX130 has no listed predecessor or successor.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Quadro P2000 wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons in the database, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test with a 229.8% advantage and the Vulkan test with a 379.75% advantage. Its average benchmark score of 6049 is 9.8% higher than the MX130's 5508. In the overall GPU percentile distribution, the P2000 ranks at the 35th percentile, three points above the MX130's 32nd.

Who should pick the Quadro P2000? Any workload that depends on compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or display connectivity. It has over three times the shading units, 2.5 times the texture units, and five times the ROP count of the MX130. Its FP32 throughput is 3.031 TFLOPS versus 913.2 GFLOPS. Its 140.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than three times the MX130's 40.10 GB/s, and it carries 5 GB of VRAM versus 2 GB. For applications that stress memory capacity or bandwidth, the P2000 is the only rational choice from this pair.

Who should pick the MX130? The case is narrower. It has a lower TDP of 30 W versus 75 W, consumes less power, and requires no external power connector or suggested PSU. Its smaller die and integrated form factor suit compact portable designs. It also has a slightly higher base clock (1109 MHz versus 1076 MHz), though its boost clock is far lower. For users constrained by power envelopes or physical space, and whose workloads are light enough not to need the P2000's compute resources, the MX130 is the more economical silicon. The benchmark data, however, gives no scenario in which the MX130 outperforms the P2000 on raw performance.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measured specification. The Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip on the Pascal architecture with a 16 nm process; the MX130 uses GM108S on Maxwell with 28 nm. Transistor count is 4,400 million versus 1,020 million, and die size is 200 mm² versus 77 mm². Transistor density is 22.0M per mm² versus 13.2M per mm².

Clock behavior differs: base clocks are 1076 MHz for the P2000 and 1109 MHz for the MX130, but boost clocks are 1480 MHz and 1189 MHz respectively. Memory clocks are 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) against 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 5 GB versus 2 GB, bus width 160-bit versus 64-bit, and bandwidth 140.2 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s.

Compute resources: 1024 shading units versus 384, 64 TMUs versus 24, and 40 ROPs versus 8. Pixel rate is 59.20 GPixel/s versus 9.512 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 94.72 GTexel/s versus 28.54 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 3.031 TFLOPS versus 913.2 GFLOPS. FP16 is listed at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64) for the P2000 and absent for the MX130.

Power and physical specs: TDP is 75 W versus 30 W. The P2000 is single-slot with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU; the MX130 is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x4. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus portable device dependent. The P2000 measures 196 mm (7.7 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high; the MX130 has no listed dimensions. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0); both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates are February 2017 for the P2000 and November 2017 for the MX130.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct benchmark comparisons between these GPUs, and the Quadro P2000 wins both by wide margins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the P2000 scores 20125 against the MX130's 6102. That is a delta of 229.8% in favor of the P2000. The absolute gap is 14,023 points. This benchmark typically reflects general compute throughput, and the P2000's 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, combined with its 140.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, explains the magnitude of the lead. The MX130's 913.2 GFLOPS and 40.10 GB/s bandwidth place it at a structural disadvantage in any memory-intensive or compute-heavy workload.

The Vulkan benchmark shows an even larger gap. The P2000 scores 23566, while the MX130 scores 4914. This is a delta of 379.6% in favor of the P2000, an absolute difference of 18,652 points. Vulkan performance depends on both raw shading throughput and driver efficiency with modern APIs. The P2000's 1024 shading units and 40 ROPs, coupled with its higher boost clock of 1480 MHz, give it a commanding edge. The MX130's 384 shading units and 8 ROPs, with a boost clock of just 1189 MHz, cannot keep pace.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the same story. The P2000's average of 6049 places it among rivals like the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6077, 0.5% ahead), the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078, 0.5% ahead), the AMD Radeon 760M (6019, 0.5% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001, 0.8% behind). The MX130's average of 5508 sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, 0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, 0.5% behind), the AMD FirePro M4000 (5537, 0.5% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467, 0.7% behind). The P2000's closest rivals are all within 0.8% of its score, while the MX130's closest rivals are within 0.7%, meaning both cards sit in tightly packed performance tiers but at different absolute levels.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2000 wins every measured benchmark category. Its strongest relative advantage appears in Vulkan, where it leads by 379.6%, and its smallest advantage is in OpenCL, where it leads by 229.8%. It is the clear choice for compute-bound rendering, GPU-accelerated analysis, or any task that benefits from 5 GB of VRAM and 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. Its four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it suitable for multi-display setups. Its 75 W TDP and single-slot design allow it to fit in workstations without additional power cabling. The P2000's Pascal architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a higher feature level than the MX130's 11_0, which matters for newer graphics APIs.

The MX130's wins are not on the benchmark sheet but in the physical and power envelope. It draws 30 W, less than half the P2000's 75 W, and requires no suggested PSU. Its 28 nm chip is small at 77 mm², and its integrated form factor suits thin portable devices. Its base clock of 1109 MHz is marginally higher than the P2000's 1076 MHz, which may give it a slight edge in very short, lightly threaded tasks that never reach boost states. The MX130 also launched later, in November 2017 versus February 2017, so it is a newer design in the GeForce MX line. For users whose priority is battery life, thermal headroom, or fitting a GPU into a compact chassis, the MX130 is the only viable option of the two. For everything measurable in the database, the P2000 is decisively ahead.