GeForce MX130 vs Radeon R7 265

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 265 with GeForce MX130, including specs and performance data.

R7 265
2014, $149
4 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
9.66
+124%

R7 265 outperforms MX130 by a whopping 124% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking488710
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.69no data
Power efficiency4.9511.05
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code namePitcairnGM108
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (11 years ago)17 November 2017 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores1024384
Core clock speedno data1122 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHz1242 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate59.2029.81
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPS0.9539 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs6424
L1 Cache256 KB192 KB
L2 Cache512 KB1024 KB

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

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 amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s40.1 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data
Optimus-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan-1.1.126
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

R7 265 9.66
+124%
GeForce MX130 4.31

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.

R7 265 5220
+123%
GeForce MX130 2345

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 HD40−45
+122%
18
−122%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.73no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 27
+0%
27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4
+0%
4
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7
+0%
7
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 20
+0%
20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
Fortnite 32
+0%
32
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 23
+0%
23
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12
+0%
12
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 35
+0%
35
+0%
Far Cry 5 13
+0%
13
+0%
Fortnite 24
+0%
24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 15
+0%
15
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 3
+0%
3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21
+0%
21
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14
+0%
14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7
+0%
7
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 16
+0%
16
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how R7 265 and GeForce MX130 compete in popular games:

  • R7 265 is 122% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.66 4.31
Recency 13 February 2014 17 November 2017
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 30 Watt

R7 265 has a 124.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX130, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX130 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce MX130 is a notebook one.

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.


AMD Radeon R7 265
Radeon R7 265
NVIDIA GeForce MX130
GeForce MX130

Other comparisons

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.


3.2 383 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 2440 votes

Rate GeForce MX130 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 265 or GeForce MX130, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.