RTX A5500 Mobile vs GeForce GT 130M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 130M with RTX A5500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX A5500 Mobile outperforms GT 130M by a whopping 12019% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1279 | 78 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.12 | 18.97 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | G96C | GA103 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 8 January 2009 (16 years ago) | 22 March 2022 (2 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 | 32 | 7424 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 975 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 314 million | 22,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 165 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 9.600 | 348.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.096 TFLOPS | 22.27 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 144 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 96 |
| TMUs | 16 | 232 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 232 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 58 |
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 | large |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | Up to 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 (DDR2)/800 (GDDR3) MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 (DDR2)/25 (GDDR3) | 512.0 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
| 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.
| 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 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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
−12400%
| 125
+12400%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 75 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 51 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−6300%
|
120−130
+6300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1314%
|
95−100
+1314%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−12800%
|
129
+12800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−6300%
|
120−130
+6300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1314%
|
95−100
+1314%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−11300%
|
114
+11300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−5267%
|
160−170
+5267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2214%
|
160−170
+2214%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−785%
|
230−240
+785%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−6300%
|
120−130
+6300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1314%
|
95−100
+1314%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1886%
|
270−280
+1886%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−8700%
|
88
+8700%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−1540%
|
164
+1540%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−5267%
|
160−170
+5267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2214%
|
160−170
+2214%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−5025%
|
205
+5025%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−785%
|
230−240
+785%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1314%
|
95−100
+1314%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−7500%
|
76
+7500%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−1450%
|
155
+1450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−5267%
|
160−170
+5267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2214%
|
160−170
+2214%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−2450%
|
102
+2450%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−785%
|
230−240
+785%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−8650%
|
170−180
+8650%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 45 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−12200%
|
120−130
+12200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−8100%
|
80−85
+8100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 110−120 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 30−35 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−547%
|
97
+547%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−12600%
|
250−260
+12600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−5600%
|
55−60
+5600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2900%
|
60−65
+2900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2750%
|
55−60
+2750%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 145
+0%
|
145
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 280−290
+0%
|
280−290
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
This is how GT 130M and RTX A5500 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX A5500 Mobile is 12400% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RTX A5500 Mobile is 12800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX A5500 Mobile is ahead in 33 tests (54%)
- there's a draw in 28 tests (46%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.37 | 44.84 |
| Recency | 8 January 2009 | 22 March 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 165 Watt |
GT 130M has 617.4% lower power consumption.
RTX A5500 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 12018.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 587.5% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A5500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 130M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 130M is a notebook graphics card while RTX A5500 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
