Radeon RX Vega 3 vs GeForce GT 130M

Place in the ranking	1265	778
Place by popularity	not in top-100	80
Power efficiency	1.15	13.85
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code name	G96C	Picasso
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	8 January 2009 (15 years ago)	6 January 2019 (5 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	192
Core clock speed	600 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1001 MHz
Number of transistors	314 million	4,940 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	9.600	12.01
Floating-point processing power	0.096 TFLOPS	0.3844 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	144	no data
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	16	12

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
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	None	None
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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	Up to 1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	500 (DDR2)/800 (GDDR3) MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	16 (DDR2)/25 (GDDR3)	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	Single Link DVIDisplayPortVGAHDMIDual Link DVI	No outputs
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 compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.4
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
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.

GT 130M 0.38

RX Vega 3 2.98
+684%

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.

GT 130M 146

RX Vega 3 1149
+687%

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.

GT 130M 1629

RX Vega 3 5441
+234%

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

−1100%

12
+1100%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3

−200%

6−7
+200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −133%	7 +133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −200%	6 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Hitman 3	4−5 −25%	5 +25%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −175%	21−24 +175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −39.3%	35−40 +39.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Hitman 3	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −175%	21−24 +175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −175%	11 +175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −88.9%	17 +88.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −39.3%	35−40 +39.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Hitman 3	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −12.5%	9 +12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −125%	9 +125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +125%	4 −125%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −39.3%	35−40 +39.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	1−2
Hitman 3	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−200%

6−7
+200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−100%

4−5
+100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6 +0%	6 +0%
Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	7 +0%	7 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6 +0%	6 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

+0%

7−8

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how GT 130M and RX Vega 3 compete in popular games:

RX Vega 3 is 1100% faster in 1080p

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

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 130M is 125% faster.
in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega 3 is 300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 130M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
RX Vega 3 is ahead in 28 tests (47%)
there's a draw in 30 tests (51%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.38	2.98
Recency	8 January 2009	6 January 2019
Chip lithography	55 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	15 Watt

RX Vega 3 has a 684.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 53.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 3 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 130M in performance tests.

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