GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 are two very different mobile graphics solutions, separated by five years of GPU architecture evolution. The Quadro K4000M is a professional mobile workstation part built on the older Kepler design, while the GeForce MX130 is a consumer-class chip based on the later Maxwell architecture. The recorded data shows a surprisingly close contest in raw compute benchmarks, but the underlying specifications tell a story of two GPUs designed for entirely different purposes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this compute-oriented workload, the GeForce MX130 scores 6102 points, while the Quadro K4000M scores 5986 points. That is a difference of 1.9 percent in favor of the MX130. In practical terms, this margin is almost negligible; both GPUs land within a hair of each other on raw OpenCL performance. The data indicates that for general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL, users would be hard-pressed to notice a difference between these two parts.

Looking at the broader context, the Quadro K4000M’s score of 5986 places it at the 34th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5987 (a 0 percent difference), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 (0.1 percent ahead), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 (0.2 percent behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000 (0.2 percent behind). This clustering shows that the K4000M sits squarely in a dense pack of mid-range GPUs from its era, with no single rival dominating it by more than a fraction of a percent.

The GeForce MX130, with its OpenCL score of 6102, achieves a 32nd percentile ranking among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (0.1 percent behind the MX130), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483 (0.5 percent behind), the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537 (0.5 percent ahead of the MX130), and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 at 5467 (0.7 percent behind). The MX130’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 5508, which is lower than its OpenCL score because it also includes a Vulkan result of 4914. That Vulkan score pulls the average down, but the OpenCL result remains the primary point of comparison with the K4000M.

The head-to-head table shows only one benchmark, and the MX130 wins it. This is a narrow victory, though. A 1.9 percent lead in OpenCL is well within the margin of run-to-run variance for many workloads. The data does not show any test where the Quadro K4000M pulls ahead, but it also does not show a significant defeat. For anyone comparing these two solely on compute benchmarks, the conclusion is that they are effectively tied.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The Quadro K4000M is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip, while the GeForce MX130 uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip. Kepler was NVIDIA’s 2012 flagship design, and GK104 was a large die used across many high-end desktop and mobile parts. Maxwell, by contrast, was a later refinement focused on efficiency, and GM108S is a small, low-power chip.

Both GPUs are fabricated on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC. The transistor counts diverge sharply. The K4000M packs 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², giving it a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The MX130 has only 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, which works out to 13.2 million per square millimeter. The K4000M’s die is nearly four times larger in area and holds more than three times as many transistors. That size difference reflects the K4000M’s role as a higher-end part with more execution resources.

The memory subsystems are also very different. The K4000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 89.60 GB/s. The MX130 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a critical distinction. The K4000M moves data at more than twice the rate, which matters for large textures, frame buffers, and data-intensive compute workloads. The MX130’s narrow bus is a fundamental limitation that no amount of clock speed can overcome.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The K4000M runs at a base and boost clock of 601 MHz, with memory at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The MX130 runs at 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The MX130’s higher clocks help it compensate for having fewer cores and less memory bandwidth in some workloads. This is a classic trade-off: a small, fast chip versus a large, slower one.

The K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The K4000M’s raw execution resources are far greater, but its lower clocks reduce the effective throughput advantage. The pixel rate for the K4000M is 12.02 GPixel/s, while the MX130 achieves 9.512 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 48.08 GTexel/s for the K4000M versus 28.54 GTexel/s for the MX130. In FP32 compute, the K4000M delivers 1,153.9 GFLOPS, compared to 913.2 GFLOPS for the MX130.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan support differs: the K4000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the MX130 supports Vulkan 1.4. That newer Vulkan revision on the MX130 is a meaningful advantage for modern games and applications that use Vulkan’s latest features.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the GeForce MX130 wins the only direct benchmark, the OpenCL test, with a 1.9 percent margin. It also has a significant advantage in clock speed, running at nearly double the base frequency of the K4000M. Its Vulkan support is more recent, which could translate to better compatibility with newer software titles. The MX130’s lower transistor count and smaller die also imply lower power consumption; the TDP is listed as 30 W versus 100 W for the K4000M. For thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals are priorities, the MX130 is clearly the more practical choice.

The Quadro K4000M wins in nearly every specification category that matters for throughput. It has more than double the shading units, more than three times the TMUs, four times the ROPs, double the memory capacity, four times the memory bus width, and more than double the memory bandwidth. Its FP32 compute output is 26 percent higher than the MX130’s, and its pixel rate is 26 percent higher as well. These advantages do not show up in the single OpenCL benchmark, but they would likely appear in workloads that stress memory bandwidth or fill-rate, such as high-resolution rendering, multi-sample anti-aliasing, or large dataset processing.

The K4000M is also a professional-grade part. Its generation is listed as Quadro Kepler-M, indicating it belongs to NVIDIA’s workstation line. The MX130 is a consumer GeForce part. In professional applications that are certified for Quadro drivers, the K4000M would be expected to perform more reliably, even if the raw numbers are similar. The database does not include driver-specific tests, but the product positioning is clear.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in almost every measurable specification. The K4000M uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The MX130 uses the GM108S chip with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Process node is identical at 28 nm, but transistor density favors the MX130 at 13.2M per square millimeter versus 12.0M per square millimeter.

Clocks are dramatically different. The K4000M runs at 601 MHz for both base and boost, with memory at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The MX130 runs at 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 4 GB versus 2 GB, with bus widths of 256 bit versus 64 bit. Bandwidth is 89.60 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s.

The execution pipeline differs as well. The K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rates are 12.02 GPixel/s versus 9.512 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 48.08 GTexel/s versus 28.54 GTexel/s. FP32 output is 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 913.2 GFLOPS.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The K4000M is rated at 100 W and uses an MXM Module form factor, while the MX130 is rated at 30 W and uses an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor. Both use no additional power connectors. The bus interface is MXM-B (3.0) for the K4000M and PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX130. Both have portable-device-dependent display outputs.

API support is similar for DirectX and OpenGL, but Vulkan differs: the K4000M supports 1.2.175, and the MX130 supports 1.4. The release dates are far apart: the K4000M launched in May 2012, and the MX130 launched in November 2017. The K4000M has a predecessor (Quadro Fermi-M) and a successor (Quadro Maxwell-M) in its product line, while the MX130 has neither listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The GeForce MX130 scores 6102, while the Quadro K4000M scores 5986. The MX130 leads by 1.9 percent.

Q: Does the Quadro K4000M have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The K4000M has 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth from a 256-bit bus, while the MX130 has 40.10 GB/s from a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a higher clock speed?

A: The MX130 runs at 1109 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost, compared to the K4000M’s 601 MHz base and boost.

Q: What are the transistor counts for these GPUs?

A: The K4000M has 3,540 million transistors, and the MX130 has 1,020 million transistors.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The MX130 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the K4000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The K4000M is rated at 100 W, and the MX130 is rated at 30 W.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear split between these two GPUs. The GeForce MX130 wins the only recorded benchmark, delivers higher clocks, supports a newer Vulkan revision, and consumes far less power at 30 W versus 100 W. For a user looking for a low-power GPU in a thin laptop, the MX130 is the obvious choice. Its performance in the OpenCL test is competitive, and its efficiency profile is far better suited to portable devices.

The Quadro K4000M, however, is the stronger part on paper for demanding workloads. Its 4 GB of VRAM, 256-bit memory bus, and 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth are double or more than the MX130’s capabilities. Its FP32 throughput of 1,153.9 GFLOPS exceeds the MX130’s 913.2 GFLOPS by 26 percent. The K4000M also has a much larger execution pipeline with 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. These resources would likely translate into better performance in memory-bound tasks, high-resolution rendering, or professional applications that leverage Quadro drivers.

The benchmark data does not capture the K4000M’s potential advantages. The single OpenCL test is compute-heavy and may not stress memory bandwidth or fill rate. Users who need a professional workstation GPU with large frame buffers and high bandwidth should choose the K4000M. Users who prioritize portability, battery life, and modern API support should choose the MX130. Both are end-of-life products, but each serves a distinct purpose. The verdict depends entirely on the workload and the system constraints.