Radeon E6465 vs GeForce MX130

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX130 and Radeon E6465, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce MX130
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 30 Watt
4.76
+693%

MX130 outperforms E6465 by a whopping 693% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking6401200
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency10.971.66
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameGM108Caicos
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date17 November 2017 (6 years ago)29 September 2015 (9 years ago)

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 cores384160
Core clock speed1122 MHz600 MHz
Boost clock speed1242 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data370 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate29.814.800
Floating-point processing power0.9539 TFLOPS0.192 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs248

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth40.1 GB/s25.6 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce MX130 4.76
+693%
Radeon E6465 0.60

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.

GeForce MX130 1835
+694%
Radeon E6465 231

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 HD18
+800%
2−3
−800%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Battlefield 5 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry 5 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
Hitman 3 9
+800%
1−2
−800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+933%
3−4
−933%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 26
+767%
3−4
−767%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+820%
5−6
−820%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Battlefield 5 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry 5 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
Hitman 3 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+933%
3−4
−933%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
+700%
2−3
−700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+820%
5−6
−820%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry 5 8
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
Hitman 3 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 13
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+820%
5−6
−820%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Hitman 3 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6 0−1

This is how GeForce MX130 and Radeon E6465 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX130 is 800% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.76 0.60
Recency 17 November 2017 29 September 2015
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 25 Watt

GeForce MX130 has a 693.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Radeon E6465, on the other hand, has 20% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX130 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon E6465 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce MX130
GeForce MX130
AMD Radeon E6465
Radeon E6465

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 2207 votes

Rate GeForce MX130 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 1 vote

Rate Radeon E6465 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.