Radeon Pro Vega II vs GeForce MX130

Place in the ranking	653	103
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	17.23
Power efficiency	10.90	5.89
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GM108	Vega 20
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	17 November 2017 (7 years ago)	3 June 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$2,199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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	4096
Core clock speed	1122 MHz	1574 MHz
Boost clock speed	1242 MHz	1720 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	13,230 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	475 Watt
Texture fill rate	29.81	440.3
Floating-point processing power	0.9539 TFLOPS	14.09 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	64
TMUs	24	256

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
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	Apple MPX
Width	no data	Quad-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	HBM2
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	32 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	4096 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	806 MHz
Memory bandwidth	40.1 GB/s	825.3 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	No outputs	1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.3
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 4.70

Pro Vega II 40.20
+755%

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 1823

Pro Vega II 15596
+756%

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

−724%

140−150
+724%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

15.71

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −686%	110−120 +686%
Cyberpunk 2077	4 −650%	30−33 +650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −686%	110−120 +686%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −686%	110−120 +686%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Forza Horizon 4	22 −718%	180−190 +718%
Forza Horizon 5	9−10 −733%	75−80 +733%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −718%	90−95 +718%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −700%	120−130 +700%
Valorant	12−14 −746%	110−120 +746%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −686%	110−120 +686%
Counter-Strike 2	3 −700%	24−27 +700%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Dota 2	21 −710%	170−180 +710%
Far Cry 5	26 −746%	220−230 +746%
Fortnite	24 −733%	200−210 +733%
Forza Horizon 4	16 −713%	130−140 +713%
Forza Horizon 5	9−10 −733%	75−80 +733%
Grand Theft Auto V	15 −700%	120−130 +700%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −718%	90−95 +718%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35 −729%	290−300 +729%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −700%	120−130 +700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 −686%	110−120 +686%
Valorant	12−14 −746%	110−120 +746%
World of Tanks	75−80 −733%	650−700 +733%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −686%	110−120 +686%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −686%	110−120 +686%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Dota 2	28 −721%	230−240 +721%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −733%	200−210 +733%
Forza Horizon 4	14 −686%	110−120 +686%
Forza Horizon 5	9−10 −733%	75−80 +733%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10 −750%	85−90 +750%
Valorant	12−14 −746%	110−120 +746%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Grand Theft Auto V	5−6 −700%	40−45 +700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 −739%	260−270 +739%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −700%	24−27 +700%
World of Tanks	30−35 −753%	290−300 +753%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −686%	55−60 +686%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −733%	75−80 +733%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −700%	40−45 +700%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −686%	55−60 +686%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7 −733%	50−55 +733%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −700%	24−27 +700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 −713%	65−70 +713%
Valorant	12−14 −746%	110−120 +746%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −724%	140−150 +724%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −713%	130−140 +713%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −746%	110−120 +746%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −700%	24−27 +700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −713%	130−140 +713%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −700%	16−18 +700%
Dota 2	16−18 −724%	140−150 +724%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −700%	40−45 +700%
Fortnite	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 −700%	16−18 +700%
Valorant	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%

This is how GeForce MX130 and Pro Vega II compete in popular games:

Pro Vega II is 724% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.70	40.20
Recency	17 November 2017	3 June 2019
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	32 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	475 Watt

GeForce MX130 has 1483.3% lower power consumption.

Pro Vega II, on the other hand, has a 755.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

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

Be aware that GeForce MX130 is a notebook card while Radeon Pro Vega II is a workstation one.

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