AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 and NVIDIA GeForce MX110 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions aimed at entry-level laptops, but the benchmark data shows a clear split in performance depending on the workload. In the two head-to-head tests available, the AMD part wins both, with its largest advantage coming in the Vulkan API where it leads by 18.3%. However, the overall average benchmark scores tell a different story, with the R5 M330 posting a higher average of 4170 compared to the MX110’s 3834, yet both sit in the bottom quartile of all GPUs, at the 25th and 23rd percentiles respectively. This is not a contest between equals in every metric, as the NVIDIA chip has significant architectural advantages in memory bandwidth and transistor count, but raw compute tests favor the AMD design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result in the entire comparison is the Geekbench Vulkan test. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4037, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 manages only 3413. That is an 18.3% margin, a substantial gap in a low-end segment where such differences are rarely seen. The Vulkan result suggests that the GCN 1.0 architecture in the AMD chip handles the lower-level API overhead more efficiently than the Maxwell-based NVIDIA part. For any application that leverages Vulkan, the R5 M330 is the clear choice based on this data.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the margin narrows dramatically. The R5 M330 scores 4302, and the MX110 is close behind at 4255, a 1.1% difference in favor of AMD. While this is still a win for the Radeon, the near-tie indicates that in OpenCL workloads, the two GPUs are effectively interchangeable in performance. The MX110’s higher memory bandwidth (40.10 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) likely helps it close the gap that its lower compute throughput would otherwise create.

Looking at the broader context, the R5 M330’s average benchmark score of 4170 places it 0.4% above the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151) and 1.9% above the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093), but it trails the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M by 1.7% (4241) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti by 0.5% (4193). The MX110’s average of 3834 puts it 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (3823) and 1.1% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792), while it falls 1.2% behind the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883) and 1.6% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898). These nearest-rival comparisons show that both chips are clustered with other low-end parts, but the AMD chip sits in a slightly higher performance tier overall.

The win count is unambiguous: the R5 M330 wins 2 benchmarks, and the MX110 wins 0. Yet the OpenCL result is so close that it could easily flip with driver updates or different test conditions. The Vulkan result, however, is a decisive and repeatable advantage for AMD.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a chip codenamed “Exo,” fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 uses the Maxwell architecture on the GM108S chip, also built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both are old designs, but they differ fundamentally in how they allocate resources.

The AMD chip has more compute units: 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The NVIDIA chip has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This gives the R5 M330 a higher theoretical fill rate, with 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s, versus the MX110’s 8.048 GPixel/s and 16.10 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute throughput also favors AMD, at 659.2 GFLOPS versus 515.1 GFLOPS. These numbers explain why the AMD chip wins the raw compute benchmarks.

However, the NVIDIA chip is built with more transistors: 1,020 million versus 690 million for AMD, on a larger die size of 77 mm² compared to 56 mm². The transistor density is slightly higher on the NVIDIA chip as well, at 13.2M / mm² versus 12.3M / mm². This extra silicon is not used for more shading units but for other features, likely the memory controller and cache hierarchy.

The memory subsystem is where the MX110 has a decisive advantage. Both use a 64-bit bus, but the NVIDIA chip uses GDDR5 memory running at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), delivering 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD chip uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding only 14.40 GB/s. That is a 2.8x difference in bandwidth, which explains why the MX110 can stay competitive in OpenCL despite having 28% fewer shading units.

Clock speeds are similar: the R5 M330 runs at 955 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost, while the MX110 runs at 978 MHz base and 1006 MHz boost. The NVIDIA chip has a slightly higher base clock, but the AMD chip has a higher boost clock.

The power envelope differs significantly. The R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W, while the MX110 has a TDP of 30 W. Both are integrated into laptops (IGP form factor) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The bus interface also differs, with the AMD chip using PCIe 3.0 x8 and the NVIDIA chip using PCIe 3.0 x4, which could affect data transfer in some scenarios.

API support shows another split. The AMD chip supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA chip supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer Vulkan version on the NVIDIA chip (1.4) does not translate into better Vulkan benchmark performance, as the data shows.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon R5 M330 as the better performer in both benchmark tests, with a particularly strong showing in Vulkan where it leads by 18.3%. Its higher shading unit count and texture rate give it a compute advantage that the NVIDIA chip cannot overcome, even with its superior memory bandwidth. The R5 M330 also has a lower TDP at 18 W versus 30 W, making it more suitable for thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is limited.

However, the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is not without merit. Its GDDR5 memory provides 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth, which is nearly three times the AMD chip’s 14.40 GB/s. This makes the MX110 better suited for memory-bound tasks, even if the benchmark scores do not reflect it in these specific tests. The MX110 also has a higher transistor count (1,020 million versus 690 million), suggesting a more complex design that could handle certain workloads more gracefully.

For users who prioritize raw compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan, the R5 M330 is the clear winner. For users who value memory bandwidth and are willing to accept lower compute throughput, the MX110 may be the better fit, but the benchmark evidence does not support that choice in the tested workloads. The R5 M330 wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head tests, and its average benchmark score is 8.8% higher (4170 versus 3834). The verdict is straightforward: pick the AMD part for better measured performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has an average benchmark score of 4170, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 scores 3834, making the AMD part 8.8% higher on average.

Q: How big is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4037 versus the NVIDIA GeForce MX110’s 3413, a difference of 18.3% in favor of AMD.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 have better memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, the MX110 has 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth from its GDDR5 memory, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 has only 14.40 GB/s from DDR3 memory.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has 320 shading units, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce MX110’s 256 shading units.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 has a TDP of 30 W.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 659.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance give it a clear edge in parallel processing tasks. The 18.3% Vulkan win demonstrates that this advantage is not theoretical but measurable in real API workloads. The R5 M330 also wins in power efficiency, with an 18 W TDP versus 30 W for the MX110, making it the better choice for battery-constrained devices. Its higher texture rate (20.60 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s) also suggests better performance in texture-heavy applications.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 wins in memory-centric scenarios, despite losing both benchmarks. Its 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth is 2.8 times higher than the R5 M330’s 14.40 GB/s, which could benefit tasks that involve large data transfers, such as video decoding or certain compute workloads that are bandwidth-limited. The MX110 also has a higher transistor count (1,020 million versus 690 million) and a larger die (77 mm² versus 56 mm²), which may indicate better feature support in areas not covered by the benchmark tests. Its newer Vulkan support (1.4 versus 1.2.170) could be relevant for future applications, though current data shows it trailing in Vulkan performance.

In the nearest-rival context, the R5 M330’s average score of 4170 puts it in a higher tier than the MX110’s 3834. The R5 M330 is competitive with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, a 0.5% gap) and Quadro K3000M (4241, a 1.7% gap), while the MX110 aligns more closely with the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (3823). This suggests that the R5 M330 belongs to a slightly better performance class.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification except for a few commonalities. Both use a 28 nm TSMC process, have 2 GB of memory, use a 64-bit memory bus, have 8 ROPs, and are IGP form factors with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Their base clocks are close (955 MHz for AMD versus 978 MHz for NVIDIA), and their boost clocks are similar (1030 MHz versus 1006 MHz).

The key differences are as follows:

• Chip and architecture: AMD uses the “Exo” chip with GCN 1.0 architecture; NVIDIA uses the GM108S with Maxwell.
• Transistors: AMD has 690 million; NVIDIA has 1,020 million.
• Die size: AMD is 56 mm²; NVIDIA is 77 mm².
• Transistor density: AMD is 12.3M / mm²; NVIDIA is 13.2M / mm².
• Memory type: AMD uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective); NVIDIA uses GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).
• Memory bandwidth: AMD is 14.40 GB/s; NVIDIA is 40.10 GB/s.
• Shading units: AMD has 320; NVIDIA has 256.
• TMUs: AMD has 20; NVIDIA has 16.
• Pixel rate: AMD is 8.240 GPixel/s; NVIDIA is 8.048 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: AMD is 20.60 GTexel/s; NVIDIA is 16.10 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: AMD is 659.2 GFLOPS; NVIDIA is 515.1 GFLOPS.
• TDP: AMD is 18 W; NVIDIA is 30 W.
• Bus interface: AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8; NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x4.
• DirectX support: AMD supports 12 (11_1); NVIDIA supports 12 (11_0).
• Vulkan support: AMD supports 1.2.170; NVIDIA supports 1.4.
• Release date: AMD launched on May 4, 2015; NVIDIA launched on November 16, 2017.

These specification differences explain the benchmark results: the AMD chip’s higher compute resources drive its benchmark wins, while the NVIDIA chip’s memory bandwidth advantage is not enough to overcome the compute deficit in the tested workloads.