Radeon HD 8650G vs GeForce MX130

Place in the ranking	644	1018
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	10.89	2.67
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)
GPU code name	GM108	Devastator
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	17 November 2017 (7 years ago)	23 May 2013 (11 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 cores	384	384
Core clock speed	1122 MHz	533 MHz
Boost clock speed	1242 MHz	720 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	1,303 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	29.81	17.28
Floating-point processing power	0.9539 TFLOPS	0.553 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	24	24

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	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	GDDR5	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	64 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	40.1 GB/s	no data
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

No 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.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.0
OpenGL	4.6	4.4
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/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
+250%

HD 8650G 1.36

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 1832
+250%

HD 8650G 523

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GeForce MX130 2875
+101%

HD 8650G 1433

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.

GeForce MX130 11968
+155%

HD 8650G 4689

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GeForce MX130 2345
+159%

HD 8650G 905

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GeForce MX130 13610
+111%

HD 8650G 6453

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GeForce MX130 170596
+138%

HD 8650G 71794

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

GeForce MX130 28
+156%

HD 8650G 11

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	18 +5.9%	17 −5.9%
1440p	70−75 +233%	21 −233%
4K	21−24 +250%	6 −250%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Far Cry 5	14 +600%	2−3 −600%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +900%	3−4 −900%
Hitman 3	9 +50%	6−7 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +107%	14−16 −107%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	26 +225%	8−9 −225%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +39.4%	30−35 −39.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Far Cry 5	11 +450%	2−3 −450%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +900%	3−4 −900%
Hitman 3	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +107%	14−16 −107%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +100%	8−9 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −17.6%	20 +17.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +39.4%	30−35 −39.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Far Cry 5	8 +300%	2−3 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +900%	3−4 −900%
Hitman 3	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	13 −15.4%	14−16 +15.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 +75%	8−9 −75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7 −57.1%	10−12 +57.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +39.4%	30−35 −39.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14
+550%

2−3

−550%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Hitman 3	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +329%	7−8 −329%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+125%

4−5

−125%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
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 +300%	1−2 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+66.7%

3−4

−66.7%

This is how GeForce MX130 and HD 8650G compete in popular games:

GeForce MX130 is 6% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX130 is 233% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX130 is 250% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX130 is 900% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 8650G is 57% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX130 is ahead in 45 tests (92%)
HD 8650G is ahead in 3 tests (6%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.76	1.36
Recency	17 November 2017	23 May 2013
Chip lithography	28 nm	32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	35 Watt

GeForce MX130 has a 250% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 16.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX130 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8650G in performance tests.

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