NVIDIA GeForce MX130 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity: the NVIDIA RTX A400 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 in every single benchmark where both have measurements. In the two shared tests, the RTX A400 delivers a dominant, multi-fold advantage. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A400 scores 22,844 against the MX130's 6,102, which represents a delta of 274.4% in favor of the workstation card. The gap widens even further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RTX A400 posts 22,237 versus the MX130's 4,914, a delta of 352.5%. These are not marginal improvements; they are generational leaps in raw compute throughput.

The average benchmark score reinforces this picture. The RTX A400 carries an average score of 6,078 across its full benchmark suite, while the MX130 averages 5,508. That is a 10.4% advantage for the RTX A400 in aggregate, though the head-to-head deltas are far larger because the MX130 has no results for the DirectX tests, the Passmark G2D/G3D tests, or compute workloads. The RTX A400's additional benchmark coverage includes Passmark DirectX 10 at 32, DirectX 11 at 37, DirectX 12 at 27, DirectX 9 at 87, G2D at 899, G3D at 5,983, and GPU compute at 2,557. The MX130 has no recorded data for any of these tests, which means its average is computed from only two workloads, both of which it loses decisively.

When placed against its own nearest rivals, the RTX A400 sits in a tight cluster. Its average score of 6,078 is essentially level with the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6,077, a 0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6,049, a 0.5% delta in favor of the A400), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6,117, a 0.6% delta in favor of the Intel part), and the AMD Radeon 760M (6,019, a 1% delta in favor of the A400). This indicates that while the RTX A400 is far ahead of the MX130, it is not a standout among its own performance tier; it is a mid-pack workstation card. The MX130, by contrast, sits among older mobile parts: its average of 5,508 is within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5,501), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5,483), the AMD FirePro M4000 (5,537), and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5,467). The MX130's percentile ranking of 32 versus the RTX A400's 35 confirms that both cards sit in the lower half of all GPUs, but the A400 is measurably higher.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict: the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the superior product in every measurable way. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks with deltas of 274.4% and 352.5%. It has a higher average benchmark score (6,078 versus 5,508). It holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs (35 versus 32). It is also a current, active production part, whereas the MX130 is end-of-life. For any workload that depends on OpenCL or Vulkan performance, the RTX A400 is categorically the right choice.

The MX130's only advantages are qualitative, not quantitative. It has a lower TDP (30 W versus 50 W) and is designed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) for portable devices, meaning it consumes less power and requires no dedicated slot space. But the benchmark data shows that this efficiency comes at a massive performance cost. In OpenCL, the RTX A400 delivers more than three times the score of the MX130; in Vulkan, it delivers more than four times. If the choice is between these two, the RTX A400 is for anyone who needs actual compute capability. The MX130 is only defensible for ultra-low-power, space-constrained designs where the 20 W TDP difference is non-negotiable.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural eras. The RTX A400 is built on the Ampere architecture, using the GA107 chip, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The MX130 uses the Maxwell architecture, built on the GM108S chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This node difference is stark: 8 nm versus 28 nm, which explains why the RTX A400 packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². The MX130 has only 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 13.2 million per mm². The RTX A400 has more than eight times the transistor count and more than three times the density.

The RTX A400 also introduces hardware features that the MX130 simply does not have. It includes 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores, while the MX130 has none of either. This makes the RTX A400 capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads, neither of which are possible on the MX130. The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the MX130 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the feature set underneath is fundamentally different. The RTX A400 is also a full workstation product with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the MX130 has no fixed display outputs, being "portable device dependent."

Specification Differences

The specification tables reveal a consistent pattern of the RTX A400 being larger and faster in virtually every category. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units against the MX130's 384, exactly double. Both have 24 texture mapping units, but the RTX A400 has 16 ROPs versus the MX130's 8, again double. Clock speeds favor the RTX A400: base clock of 1417 MHz versus 1109 MHz, boost clock of 1762 MHz versus 1189 MHz. Memory is also substantially different. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX130 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 64-bit bus, but only 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) on the RTX A400 versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on the MX130.

The compute rates are not close. The RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the MX130 manages 913.2 GFLOPS, a 2.96x advantage for the RTX A400. The RTX A400 also supports FP16 at 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1), while the MX130 has no recorded FP16 capability. Pixel rate is 28.19 GPixel/s on the RTX A400 versus 9.512 GPixel/s on the MX130. Texture rate is 42.29 GTexel/s versus 28.54 GTexel/s. The RTX A400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the MX130 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, halving the available lanes and dropping a generation. The RTX A400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, requiring a 250 W power supply, while the MX130 is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. Physically, the RTX A400 measures 163 mm by 69 mm; the MX130 has no recorded dimensions. The RTX A400 was released in April 2024 and is still active, while the MX130 was released in November 2017 and is end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 scores 22,844 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the MX130's 6,102, a delta of 274.4% in favor of the RTX A400.

Q: Does the MX130 support ray tracing?

A: No. The MX130 has no ray tracing cores, while the RTX A400 includes 6 RT cores.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The RTX A400 has 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR6. The MX130 has 40.10 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The RTX A400 has 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, while the MX130 has 1,020 million on a 77 mm² die.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. The RTX A400 is listed as Active, while the MX130 is End-of-life.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W, while the MX130 has a TDP of 30 W.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 wins in every benchmark category where data exists. It wins compute-heavy workloads, as shown by its 2.706 TFLOPS FP32 rate versus the MX130's 913.2 GFLOPS. It wins memory-intensive tasks, with 96.00 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s. It wins API compatibility, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate versus the MX130's DirectX 12 (11_0). It wins feature support, with ray tracing and tensor cores that the MX130 lacks entirely. It wins connectivity, with four mini-DisplayPort outputs versus the MX130's portable-device-dependent outputs. It wins on longevity, being an active product released in 2024 versus an end-of-life product from 2017.

The MX130 has exactly one clear win: power efficiency. At 30 W TDP, it uses 20 W less than the RTX A400's 50 W. It is also an IGP, meaning it requires no expansion slot and no additional cooling beyond what a portable device already provides. For a thin-and-light laptop where battery life is paramount and performance is secondary, the MX130 is the only sensible option of the two. But that is a narrow use case. The data shows that the RTX A400 is not merely better; it is in a different performance class, delivering 274.4% higher OpenCL scores and 352.5% higher Vulkan scores. Anyone who needs actual GPU compute, whether for rendering, simulation, or AI inference, should choose the RTX A400 without hesitation. The MX130 is for legacy ultraportables that never needed to run demanding workloads in the first place.