AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and consistent winner across both benchmark tests. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 in every measured workload, taking both head-to-head victories with no wins for the NVIDIA part.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051 against the NVIDIA GeForce MX110's 4255. That is a delta of -15.8% from the perspective of the NVIDIA GPU, meaning the AMD part is roughly 18.7% faster in this compute-oriented test. The margin is substantial for two mobile-class integrated parts, and it suggests the AMD silicon handles general-purpose compute workloads with noticeably more headroom.

The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan. Here, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 posts 4262 while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 manages only 3413. The delta reaches -19.9%, indicating that the AMD GPU is about 24.9% ahead in this graphics API workload. This is a larger performance gap than the OpenCL result, which hints that the AMD architecture may have a particular strength in low-level, driver-managed graphics execution.

Looking at the broader database context, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4657. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at exactly 4657 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P400 at 4684 (-0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4628 (0.6%). The fact that this mobile IGP lands within 1% of a desktop GTX 970M-class part is notable, and it underscores that the R5 M320 is punching above its apparent weight class.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110, by contrast, ranks at the 23rd percentile with an average score of 3834. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 at 3823 (0.3% delta), the Intel UHD Graphics 710 at 3792 (1.1%), the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics at 3883 (-1.2%), and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 at 3898 (-1.6%). The MX110 is effectively locked in a tight cluster with these older or entry-level parts, and its 21.5% average score deficit against the R5 M320 places it in a distinctly lower performance tier.

What makes the head-to-head results particularly interesting is the consistency of the margin. The AMD part wins by roughly 16 to 20 percentage points across two different APIs, which suggests this is not a workload-specific quirk but a fundamental performance advantage. The Vulkan result, in particular, may indicate that the GCN architecture's scheduler and command processor handle modern graphics APIs more efficiently than the Maxwell-based MX110.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 uses the GM108S chip built on the Maxwell architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The die measures 77 mm² and contains 1,020 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 uses the Jet chip based on GCN 1.0, also fabricated by TSMC at 28 nm, but with a smaller 56 mm² die that packs 690 million transistors at a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter.

The core configurations differ significantly. The NVIDIA part has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The AMD part fields 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and also 8 ROPs. The AMD GPU has 25% more shading units and 25% more texture units, yet the NVIDIA chip achieves higher pixel fill rate: 8.048 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s. This is likely due to the MX110's higher clock speeds. The NVIDIA GPU runs at 978 MHz base and 1006 MHz boost, while the AMD part operates at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. The texture rate tells a different story: the AMD GPU reaches 17.10 GTexel/s, slightly ahead of the NVIDIA part's 16.10 GTexel/s, thanks to its extra TMUs.

In raw FP32 compute, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 outputs 547.2 GFLOPS against the NVIDIA GeForce MX110's 515.1 GFLOPS, a 6.2% advantage for AMD. This aligns with the OpenCL benchmark results, where AMD's lead was larger than the FP32 gap would predict, suggesting other factors such as memory bandwidth or driver efficiency play a role.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The NVIDIA MX110 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD R5 M320 offers 4 GB of DDR3, also on a 64-bit bus, but only reaches 16.00 GB/s. That is a 60% bandwidth deficit for the AMD part, which is striking given its benchmark wins. The AMD GPU compensates with a larger frame buffer, which can help in texture-heavy scenes that exceed 2 GB, but the raw bandwidth gap is substantial.

The memory clocks reflect this: the NVIDIA GPU runs its memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while AMD's memory operates at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The GDDR5 versus DDR3 split explains why the MX110 achieves over twice the bandwidth despite the same bus width. The AMD part's 4 GB capacity may be the reason it wins in certain scenarios, but the benchmark data does not isolate capacity effects.

Both GPUs expose similar API support, with DirectX 12 (the NVIDIA at feature level 11_0, AMD at 11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan (NVIDIA 1.4, AMD 1.2.170). The bus interface differs: the MX110 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8, giving AMD twice the host link bandwidth. Both are integrated graphics (IGP) with portable-device-dependent display outputs and no power connectors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 4657 on average, compared to 3834 for the NVIDIA GeForce MX110. The AMD part sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs, while the NVIDIA part sits at the 23rd percentile.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon R5 M320 faster in both OpenCL and Vulkan?

A: Yes. The AMD part wins Geekbench OpenCL with 5051 versus 4255 (a -15.8% delta for NVIDIA) and Geekbench Vulkan with 4262 versus 3413 (a -19.9% delta for NVIDIA). It wins both head-to-head tests.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 delivers 40.10 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 provides 16.00 GB/s from 4 GB of DDR3, also on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the clock speeds for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA GPU runs at 978 MHz base and 1006 MHz boost. The AMD GPU runs at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has 320 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 has 256 shading units. AMD also leads in TMUs, 20 to 16, though both have 8 ROPs.

Q: What is the transistor count for each chip?

A: The NVIDIA GM108S chip contains 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The AMD Jet chip contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX110 | AMD Radeon R5 M320 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GM108S | Jet |

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | GeForce MX (1xx) | Gem System (R5 M300) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 978 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1006 MHz | 855 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 40.10 GB/s | 16.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 320 |

| TMUs | 16 | 20 |

| ROPs | 8 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.048 GPixel/s | 6.840 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 16.10 GTexel/s | 17.10 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 515.1 GFLOPS | 547.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2017-11-16 | 2015-05-04 |

| Predecessor | None | Solar System |

| Successor | None | Polaris Mobile |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins in every recorded benchmark category, so the use-case split is straightforward. It is the stronger choice for any workload that leverages OpenCL compute, where its 5051 score beats the NVIDIA part's 4255. This includes general-purpose GPU tasks like image processing, physics simulations, and any application that offloads parallel math to the GPU. Its Vulkan advantage, 4262 versus 3413, makes it the better pick for modern games or applications built on low-level graphics APIs, where the AMD architecture appears to extract more performance per clock.

The AMD part's larger 4 GB frame buffer gives it an edge in scenarios that exceed 2 GB of video memory, such as high-resolution textures or multi-monitor setups. Even though its DDR3 memory is slower in bandwidth, the extra capacity can prevent stuttering or texture swapping in memory-hungry applications. The NVIDIA GeForce MX110, however, holds the bandwidth crown with 40.10 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s, which could benefit older DirectX 11 titles or workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive rather than compute-bound. The MX110 also has a higher pixel fill rate at 8.048 GPixel/s, which may help in fill-rate-limited scenarios like heavy alpha blending or shadow rendering.

For users who prioritize raw compute and modern API performance, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 is the clear winner. For those who need faster memory bandwidth or prefer the NVIDIA driver ecosystem, the MX110 has specific advantages, but the benchmark data does not show any test where it converts those advantages into a win. The AMD part also benefits from a higher FP32 throughput (547.2 GFLOPS versus 515.1 GFLOPS) and a wider PCIe interface (x8 versus x4), which can reduce transfer bottlenecks in data-intensive tasks.

The Verdict

The benchmark data delivers an unambiguous verdict: the AMD Radeon R5 M320 is the superior GPU in this comparison. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a 21.5% higher average benchmark score (4657 versus 3834), and ranks four percentile points higher among all GPUs (27th versus 23rd). The AMD part achieves this despite having slower memory (DDR3 at 16.00 GB/s versus GDDR5 at 40.10 GB/s), which suggests its architectural efficiency and higher shading unit count (320 versus 256) more than compensate for the bandwidth deficit.

Users who run OpenCL or Vulkan workloads should choose the AMD Radeon R5 M320 without hesitation, based on the recorded margins of -15.8% and -19.9% respectively. The AMD GPU also offers double the memory capacity at 4 GB, which future-proofs it for applications with growing memory demands. The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is not without merit: its GDDR5 memory provides over twice the bandwidth, and its higher clocks (978/1006 MHz versus 780/855 MHz) yield a better pixel fill rate. However, none of these advantages translate into a single benchmark win in the database.

For a user who already owns a system with the MX110, the data shows it is a capable entry-level part, sitting just 0.3% above the GeForce GTX 650 and 1.1% above the Intel UHD Graphics 710. But for anyone choosing between these two mobile GPUs, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 is the better performer in every measured category. The fact that the AMD part achieves this with a smaller die (56 mm² versus 77 mm²) and fewer transistors (690 million versus 1,020 million) makes its performance lead all the more impressive, pointing to a more efficient architectural design for the workloads tested.