GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits cleanly between the two GPUs, with each claiming one decisive victory in the two Geekbench tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics delivers a score of 5183, which is a substantial 21.8% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce MX110's 4255. This is a commanding lead for the integrated AMD part, suggesting that in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, the Radeon R5's GCN 2.0 architecture has a significant performance advantage.

However, the tables turn in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 posts a score of 3413, which is 24.3% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics' 2582. This is an equally decisive margin, but in the opposite direction. The MX110's Maxwell architecture clearly has a strong affinity for the Vulkan API, more than overcoming the R5's OpenCL advantage.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the two GPUs are remarkably close overall. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics averages 3883 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 averages 3834 points. The delta between them is a mere 1.3%, with the AMD part holding a slight edge. This near-parity in average score is reflected in the nearest rivals list for each GPU, where they are listed as each other's rivals. The R5 Graphics is 1.3% ahead of the MX110 in average score, and from the MX110's perspective, the R5 Graphics is listed with a deltaPct of -1.2%, confirming that the AMD part is a hair faster on average.

The individual test results are far more polarizing than the average scores suggest. The R5's 21.8% OpenCL win is a massive swing, while the MX110's 24.3% Vulkan win is an equally large counter-swing. This creates a scenario where the "better" GPU depends entirely on the application's API preference. The head-to-head record is tied at one win each, but the magnitude of those wins is what defines the user experience.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the clear winner in OpenCL-based workloads. Its score of 5183 is not only ahead of the MX110 but also places it in the same performance tier as professional workstation cards like the NVIDIA Quadro 2000, which scores 3898, and the Quadro K2000D, which scores 3919. The R5's OpenCL performance is over 30% higher than these Quadro parts, indicating that for compute tasks that can utilize this API, the Radeon R5 is a surprisingly potent option.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110, on the other hand, dominates in Vulkan-based applications. Its score of 3413 in the Vulkan test is a clear statement of its capabilities in modern graphics APIs. The MX110's average benchmark score of 3834 puts it in the company of the GeForce GTX 650 (3823) and the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792), but its Vulkan score is its standout feature. For gaming or applications that use Vulkan, the MX110 is the only choice between the two.

The data also reveals a difference in memory architecture that influences where each GPU wins. The MX110 has a dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth and clocked at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed. The R5 Graphics uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth that is System Dependent. This means the MX110's performance is more consistent and predictable, as it does not compete with the CPU for memory resources. The R5's performance, by contrast, can vary depending on the system's memory configuration.

The Verdict

The choice between these two GPUs is not a matter of overall superiority but of application fit. The data shows that the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the pick for users who prioritize OpenCL compute performance. Its 21.8% lead over the MX110 in that specific test is a decisive factor. It also holds a marginal 1.3% advantage in average benchmark score, making it the slightly better all-rounder on paper for mixed workloads.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is the choice for users who need Vulkan performance. Its 24.3% lead over the R5 in the Vulkan test is equally decisive. For games that use the Vulkan API, the MX110 will provide a notably smoother experience. Its dedicated GDDR5 memory also offers a performance consistency that the shared-memory R5 cannot guarantee.

However, the overall performance context is crucial. Both GPUs sit at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, indicating they are entry-level parts. The average scores of 3883 and 3834 for the R5 and MX110, respectively, place them in the same performance class as the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898), Quadro K2000D (3919), and Quadro 2000D (3930). This means that while they are capable of light gaming and compute tasks, they are not high-performance solutions. Neither GPU supports ray tracing or tensor cores, as those fields are null in the data.

The final verdict is that the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics edges out the MX110 for general use due to its higher average score and dominant OpenCL performance. The MX110 is the specialist's choice for Vulkan-centric workloads. The data does not support a "one is universally better" conclusion; it supports a "one is better for specific tasks" conclusion.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has a higher average benchmark score of 3883, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce MX110's 3834, a difference of 1.3%.

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics in OpenCL?

A: The Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, which is 21.8% higher than the GeForce MX110's score of 4255.

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 in Vulkan?

A: The GeForce MX110 scores 3413 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, which is 24.3% higher than the Radeon R5 Graphics' score of 2582.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the NVIDIA GeForce MX110?

A: The MX110 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth with a memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Q: What is the memory configuration of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics?

A: The Radeon R5 Graphics uses System Shared memory, meaning its size, type, and bus width are all System Shared, and its bandwidth is System Dependent.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12?

A: Both GPUs support DirectX 12, but the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics supports version 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 supports version 12 (11_0).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and processes, which explains their divergent benchmark results. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is based on the GCN 2.0 architecture, using a chip codenamed "Spectre SL" from the Kaveri generation. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA GeForce MX110, in contrast, uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both are on the same node size, but the designs are entirely different.

The transistor count and die size differ significantly. The AMD chip packs 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 9.8M per mm². The NVIDIA chip has 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, giving it a higher transistor density of 13.2M per mm². This indicates that the Maxwell architecture is more efficient in terms of transistor packing, but the GCN 2.0 chip has a larger overall compute footprint.

Core configurations are also distinct. The Radeon R5 Graphics has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The GeForce MX110 also has 256 shading units and 16 TMUs, but it has double the ROPs at 8. This difference in ROP count directly impacts pixel throughput: the MX110 achieves a pixel rate of 8.048 GPixel/s, while the R5 Graphics manages only 3.032 GPixel/s. The MX110's advantage extends to texture rate as well, with 16.10 GTexel/s versus the R5's 12.13 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 compute, the MX110 outputs 515.1 GFLOPS, compared to the R5's 388.1 GFLOPS.

The power envelope is a major differentiator. The Radeon R5 Graphics has a TDP of 15 W and is an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor) with a bus interface of IGP, meaning it is built into the CPU. The GeForce MX110 has a TDP of 30 W and is also listed as an IGP slot width, but it uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface, indicating it is a discrete mobile chip. The MX110 requires no power connectors, while the R5's power connectors are null, as it draws power from the motherboard.

Memory architecture is a critical difference. The MX110 has dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with a 64-bit bus and fixed 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 Graphics relies entirely on System Shared memory, with its bandwidth being System Dependent. This means the MX110's memory performance is fixed and reliable, while the R5's is variable. The MX110's memory clock is specified at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the R5's memory clock is simply "System Shared."

API support shows a split. Both support OpenGL 4.6. For DirectX, the R5 supports 12 (12_0), while the MX110 supports 12 (11_0). For Vulkan, the R5 supports version 1.2.170, while the MX110 supports version 1.4, which is a newer revision. Display outputs are dependent on the motherboard for the R5 and on the portable device for the MX110. Finally, the production status for both is End-of-life, with the R5 releasing on 2014-09-16 and the MX110 on 2017-11-16. The R5's predecessor is TeraScale 3 IGP, and its successor is GCN 3.0 IGP, while the MX110 has no listed predecessor or successor.