FirePro M2000 vs GeForce MX130

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX130 with FirePro M2000, including specs and performance data.

GeForce MX130
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 30 Watt
4.75
+332%

MX130 outperforms M2000 by a whopping 332% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6411079
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency11.042.32
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameGM108Turks
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date17 November 2017 (7 years ago)1 July 2012 (12 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 cores384480
Core clock speed1122 MHz500 MHz
Boost clock speed1242 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data716 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt33 Watt
Texture fill rate29.8112.00
Floating-point processing power0.9539 TFLOPS0.48 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs2424

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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
Bus supportno datan/a
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Form factorno datachip-down
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth40.1 GB/s25.6 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
StereoOutput3D-+

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.

DirectX12 (11_0)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.126N/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 4.75
+332%
FirePro M2000 1.10

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 1833
+331%
FirePro M2000 425

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
+242%
FirePro M2000 841

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
+203%
FirePro M2000 3956

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GeForce MX130 6507
+457%
FirePro M2000 1168

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:

900p35−40
+289%
9
−289%
Full HD18
+28.6%
14
−28.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Battlefield 5 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Far Cry 5 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Hitman 3 9
+80%
5−6
−80%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+138%
12−14
−138%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 26
+271%
7−8
−271%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+43.8%
30−35
−43.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Battlefield 5 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Far Cry 5 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+138%
12−14
−138%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
+129%
7−8
−129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+54.5%
10−12
−54.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+43.8%
30−35
−43.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
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
+167%
3−4
−167%
Far Cry 5 8
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 13
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14
+100%
7−8
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7
−57.1%
10−12
+57.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+43.8%
30−35
−43.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

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
+175%
4−5
−175%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+500%
5−6
−500%

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 0−1
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 0−1
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 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

This is how GeForce MX130 and FirePro M2000 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX130 is 289% faster in 900p
  • GeForce MX130 is 29% faster in 1080p

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 2900% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FirePro M2000 is 57% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce MX130 is ahead in 44 tests (96%)
  • FirePro M2000 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.75 1.10
Recency 17 November 2017 1 July 2012
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 33 Watt

GeForce MX130 has a 331.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 10% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX130 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX130 is a notebook graphics card while FirePro M2000 is a mobile workstation one.


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

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.


NVIDIA GeForce MX130
GeForce MX130
AMD FirePro M2000
FirePro M2000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.7 2208 votes

Rate GeForce MX130 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 4 votes

Rate FirePro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.