Radeon RX 590 vs GeForce GT 130M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 130M with Radeon RX 590, including specs and performance data.
RX 590 outperforms GT 130M by a whopping 6456% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1288 | 247 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 93 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 21.76 |
| Power efficiency | 1.10 | 9.50 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | G96C | Polaris 30 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 8 January 2009 (16 years ago) | 15 November 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $279 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 32 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1469 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1545 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 314 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 175 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 9.600 | 222.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.096 TFLOPS | 7.119 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 144 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 144 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | 2-way | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | Up to 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 (DDR2)/800 (GDDR3) MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 (DDR2)/25 (GDDR3) | 256.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | Single Link DVIDisplayPortVGAHDMIDual Link DVI | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 1−2
−10100%
| 102
+10100%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 60 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 38 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.74 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.65 |
| 4K | no data | 7.34 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4800%
|
45−50
+4800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 45−50 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4800%
|
45−50
+4800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3900%
|
120
+3900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 45−50 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1614%
|
120
+1614%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1058%
|
301
+1058%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1693%
|
250−260
+1693%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4800%
|
45−50
+4800%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−1090%
|
110−120
+1090%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3667%
|
113
+3667%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 45−50 |
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 52 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1443%
|
108
+1443%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−2100%
|
88
+2100%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1004%
|
287
+1004%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4800%
|
45−50
+4800%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−1090%
|
110−120
+1090%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2933%
|
91
+2933%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 45−50 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1086%
|
83
+1086%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1175%
|
51
+1175%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−323%
|
110
+323%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 160−170 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−5700%
|
170−180
+5700%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−5800%
|
55−60
+5800%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 50−55 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−173%
|
41
+173%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−5550%
|
113
+5550%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24
+2300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1650%
|
35
+1650%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1350%
|
29
+1350%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 133
+0%
|
133
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 139
+0%
|
139
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 111
+0%
|
111
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 138
+0%
|
138
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 96
+0%
|
96
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Valorant | 232
+0%
|
232
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how GT 130M and RX 590 compete in popular games:
- RX 590 is 10100% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 590 is 5800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 590 is ahead in 25 tests (42%)
- there's a draw in 34 tests (58%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.32 | 20.98 |
| Recency | 8 January 2009 | 15 November 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 175 Watt |
GT 130M has 660.9% lower power consumption.
RX 590, on the other hand, has a 6456.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 358.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 590 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 130M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 130M is a notebook card while Radeon RX 590 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
