Wednesday, November 15th 2017

NVIDIA Quietly Rolls Out GeForce MX130 and MX110 Notebook GPUs

NVIDIA quietly rolled out two entry-level notebook graphics processors, the GeForce MX130 and GeForce MX110. The two continue to be based on the "Maxwell" GPU architecture, and from the looks of it, appear to be based on the "GM108" silicon. With a core-configuration of 384 CUDA cores, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, and GDDR5 memory, and mentioned that the MX130 is "2.5x" as fast as Intel UHD 620 graphics, while the MX110 is "1.5x" as fast, with slower DDR3 memory. Both support NVIDIA Optimus technology, besides the feature-set of the "Maxwell" architecture, and complete the MX100-series entry-level notebook GPU family led by the GP108-based MX150, which offers 4x UHD 620 performance.
Add your own comment

13 Comments on NVIDIA Quietly Rolls Out GeForce MX130 and MX110 Notebook GPUs

#1
Hugh Mungus
Mx110 is pointless, unless you want some gpu power with a pentium or something, but the mx130 might make sense to someone. Considering the mx150 notebooks are generally quite cheap though, there might still not be much point in getting a notebook with a mx130.
Posted on Reply
#2
R0H1T
"Hugh Mungus said:
Mx110 is pointless, unless you want some gpu power with a pentium or something, but the mx130 might make sense to someone. Considering the mx150 notebooks are generally quite cheap though, there might still not be much point in getting a notebook with a mx130.
Yes but the OP seems counter intuitive in that regard ~
NVIDIA won't reveal the exact core-config or clock speeds of the two, but mentioned that the MX130 is "2.5x" as fast as Intel UHD 620 graphics, while the MX110 is "1.5x" as fast.
Not to mention that it goes against the general naming convention Nvidia, or AMD, follow wrt GPU of the same class.
Posted on Reply
#3
Xajel
With the new Intel+AMD iGPU the MX150 it self is somehow pointless now, and maybe these new babies will be a hard sell.
Posted on Reply
#4
R0H1T
"Xajel said:
With the new Intel+AMD iGPU the MX150 it self is somehow pointless now, and maybe these new babies will be a hard sell.
The MX150 is a tier or two below the Vega dGPU in KBL H, it probably costs less than half as well. The MX series is basically aimed as the 940MX replacement, with a 64bit GDDR5 bus, it's in a class of its own atm.
Posted on Reply
#5
ZeDestructor
"Hugh Mungus said:
Mx110 is pointless, unless you want some gpu power with a pentium or something, but the mx130 might make sense to someone. Considering the mx150 notebooks are generally quite cheap though, there might still not be much point in getting a notebook with a mx130.
"Xajel said:
With the new Intel+AMD iGPU the MX150 it self is somehow pointless now, and maybe these new babies will be a hard sell.
It's about the drivers. For all the efforts that AMD is putting in, nV still has a lot of driver reputation, especially in the professional space. Basically this is for the people who want nVidia drivers at around iGPU power levels, which is exactly what this is.
Posted on Reply
#6
RejZoR
"ZeDestructor said:
It's about the drivers. For all the efforts that AMD is putting in, nV still has a lot of driver reputation, especially in the professional space. Basically this is for the people who want nVidia drivers at around iGPU power levels, which is exactly what this is.
NVIDIA has no "driver reputation". They can be just as crap as anyone else. Or even worse sometimes...
Posted on Reply
#7
Vya Domus
"ZeDestructor said:
It's about the drivers. For all the efforts that AMD is putting in, nV still has a lot of driver reputation, especially in the professional space. Basically this is for the people who want nVidia drivers at around iGPU power levels, which is exactly what this is.
Ain't no driver going to make these chips more appealing. Performance ranging from 1.5-2.5X the speed of the Intel UHD 620 is still pretty terrible.

They should have just stopped at the MX150 , these companies sometimes just don't know when to stop with their product segmentation.
Posted on Reply
#8
evernessince
"ZeDestructor said:
It's about the drivers. For all the efforts that AMD is putting in, nV still has a lot of driver reputation, especially in the professional space. Basically this is for the people who want nVidia drivers at around iGPU power levels, which is exactly what this is.
I have never heard "Gee I wish I had an Nvidia card with the power of an Intel iGPU", that's dumb AF. Nvidia's drivers don't add squat to the equation.

The AMD / Intel partnership makes these Nvidia chips completely irrelevant. No laptop OEM is going to be adding a separate weaker dGPU when they can get everything in a smaller single package that is more powerful. I expect that the AMD / Intel solution is also more energy efficient.
Posted on Reply
#9
blibba
"evernessince said:
I have never heard "Gee I wish I had an Nvidia card with the power of an Intel iGPU", that's dumb AF. Nvidia's drivers don't add squat to the equation.

The AMD / Intel partnership makes these Nvidia chips completely irrelevant. No laptop OEM is going to be adding a separate weaker dGPU when they can get everything in a smaller single package that is more powerful. I expect that the AMD / Intel solution is also more energy efficient.
I have Intel iGPU at work, and I sure as hell wish I had an Nvidia card at the same performance level instead. Why not more performance you ask? Well, presumably, that'd cost more money for something I don't need.

Intel drivers create so many problems for me with projectors, screens etc. at anything other than 1080p or 1368*768, and in my experience Nvidia GPUs tend to have better output options for 1920*1200 and above, too.
Posted on Reply
#10
evernessince
"blibba said:
I have Intel iGPU at work, and I sure as hell wish I had an Nvidia card at the same performance level instead. Why not more performance you ask? Well, presumably, that'd cost more money for something I don't need.

Intel drivers create so many problems for me with projectors, screens etc. at anything other than 1080p or 1368*768, and in my experience Nvidia GPUs tend to have better output options for 1920*1200 and above, too.
TBH that sounds like an issue with your equipment, not Intel drivers. I have zero issues using Intel graphics with my projectors and 4k monitors. But yes, adding a dGPU at the same power of Intel graphics is dumb. It consumes more power just by adding a 2nd GPU, it takes up valuable space, and it needs to be cooled. Until Nvidia can come up with it's own x86 CPU, which may be never, it makes zero sense as a mobile device OEM to waste precious battery life and space.
Posted on Reply
#11
blibba
"evernessince said:
TBH that sounds like an issue with your equipment, not Intel drivers. I have zero issues using Intel graphics with my projectors and 4k monitors. But yes, adding a dGPU at the same power of Intel graphics is dumb. It consumes more power just by adding a 2nd GPU, it takes up valuable space, and it needs to be cooled. Until Nvidia can come up with it's own x86 CPU, which may be never, it makes zero sense as a mobile device OEM to waste precious battery life and space.
I think it's more likely to be to do with the specific laptops we have, or just their age (Ivy Bridge era i5-3****Us), as it happens with too many different monitors and laptops to be a specific fault imo.
Posted on Reply
#13
AsRock
TPU addict
"RejZoR said:
NVIDIA has no "driver reputation". They can be just as crap as anyone else. Or even worse sometimes...
You would not believve the crap i been going though with there ION graphics, or maybe you would. I do know i would be very weary about buying any thing nVidia notebook related, although not just nVidia's fault some one intel driver support too.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment