GeForce 310M vs MX130

Place in the ranking	644	1325
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	10.85	1.52
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GM108	GT218
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	17 November 2017 (7 years ago)	10 January 2010 (14 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	384	16
Core clock speed	1122 MHz	606 MHz
Boost clock speed	1242 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	260 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	14 Watt
Texture fill rate	29.81	4.848
Floating-point processing power	0.9539 TFLOPS	0.04896 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	73
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	24	8

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	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	Up to 1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth	40.1 GB/s	10.67 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	DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
Power management	no data	8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/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
+1432%

GeForce 310M 0.31

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 1832
+1453%

GeForce 310M 118

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
+966%

GeForce 310M 1123

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

18
+1700%

1−2

−1700%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4
+100%

2−3

−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6	0−1
Battlefield 5	12−14	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	14	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
Hitman 3	9 +125%	4−5 −125%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +288%	8−9 −288%
Metro Exodus	10−12	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	26 +550%	4−5 −550%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +64.3%	27−30 −64.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6	0−1
Battlefield 5	12−14	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	11	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
Hitman 3	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +288%	8−9 −288%
Metro Exodus	10−12	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +300%	4−5 −300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +88.9%	9−10 −88.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +64.3%	27−30 −64.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	8	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
Hitman 3	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	13 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 +250%	4−5 −250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +64.3%	27−30 −64.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	10−11	0−1
Hitman 3	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+350%

2−3

−350%

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	0−1
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 GeForce 310M compete in popular games:

GeForce MX130 is 1700% faster in 1080p

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

in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX130 is 550% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce 310M is 29% faster.

All in all, in popular games: