AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 and AMD Radeon R5 M335 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions aimed at entry-level laptops, but the recorded benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins both head-to-head tests, with a 10.3% lead in GeekBench OpenCL and a substantial 28.3% lead in GeekBench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 4752 places it in the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX110’s average of 3834 sits in the 23rd percentile. For users choosing between these two in a used or budget laptop, the R5 M335 is the stronger option across both compute APIs tested, but the MX110 remains competitive in specific legacy workloads.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon R5 M335 should be the default pick for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads. Its GeekBench OpenCL score of 4745 and Vulkan score of 4758 both exceed the MX110’s corresponding results of 4255 and 3413. The gap is especially pronounced in Vulkan, where the R5 M335 is 28.3% faster, a difference that will be noticeable in any application leveraging that API. The MX110, by contrast, offers a narrower 10.3% deficit in OpenCL, meaning that in OpenCL-centric tasks the two are closer, but the AMD part still wins.

The MX110 is not without merit. Its architecture is newer, with a 2017 release date versus 2015 for the R5 M335, and its Maxwell design provides better API compatibility in some areas, including Vulkan 1.4 support compared to the R5 M335’s Vulkan 1.2.170. However, based strictly on benchmark outcomes, the R5 M335 is the superior performer. Its 28th percentile ranking versus the MX110’s 23rd percentile confirms it sits higher in the overall GPU distribution, and its nearest rival list includes the NVIDIA Quadro P400 at a 1.5% delta, indicating it competes with entry-level workstation parts. The MX110, in contrast, trades blows with integrated graphics like the Intel UHD Graphics 710, which sits only 1.1% behind it.

For gaming, neither part is a modern solution, but the R5 M335’s higher shading unit count and texture rate give it an edge in pixel-heavy workloads. The MX110’s advantage lies in its GDDR5 memory, which provides significantly higher bandwidth (40.10 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s), potentially benefiting memory-bound tasks despite the overall compute deficit. Buyers should pick the R5 M335 for general compute and Vulkan-based applications, while the MX110 is preferable only if memory bandwidth or newer API support (Vulkan 1.4) are critical.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The MX110 uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture on the GM108S chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The R5 M335 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture on the Exo chip, also 28 nm at TSMC, but with 690 million transistors on a smaller 56 mm² die. The MX110 has a higher transistor density of 13.2M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm² for the R5 M335, reflecting its newer design.

Core configurations differ significantly. The R5 M335 packs 320 shading units and 20 texture mapping units, while the MX110 has 256 shading units and 16 TMUs. Both have 8 ROPs, resulting in nearly identical pixel rates: 8.240 GPixel/s for the R5 M335 versus 8.048 GPixel/s for the MX110. The texture rate favors the AMD part at 20.60 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s, a 27.9% advantage that aligns with its higher TMU count. In raw FP32 compute, the R5 M335 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS versus 515.1 GFLOPS for the MX110, a 28% gap that explains its benchmark superiority.

Memory subsystems are where the MX110 counters. The NVIDIA part uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, achieving 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M335 also has 2 GB on a 64-bit bus, but uses DDR3, capping bandwidth at 14.40 GB/s. The MX110’s memory clock runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the R5 M335’s memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). This bandwidth disparity is the MX110’s primary architectural strength, though it does not overcome the R5 M335’s compute lead in the recorded benchmarks.

Other differences include the PCIe interface: the MX110 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the R5 M335 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, giving the AMD part twice the host bus bandwidth. API support favors NVIDIA, with the MX110 offering Vulkan 1.4 versus the R5 M335’s Vulkan 1.2.170, though both support DirectX 12 (11_0 for the MX110, 11_1 for the R5 M335) and OpenGL 4.6. The MX110 has a rated TDP of 30 W, while the R5 M335 has no TDP listed in the database. Both are end-of-life, with the R5 M335’s predecessor being Solar System and successor Polaris Mobile, while the MX110 has no recorded predecessor or successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers two tests, both won by the AMD Radeon R5 M335. In GeekBench OpenCL, the R5 M335 scores 4745 against the MX110’s 4255, a delta of -10.3% for the MX110. This result is consistent with the FP32 compute gap, where the R5 M335’s 659.2 GFLOPS outpaces the MX110’s 515.1 GFLOPS by 28%. The smaller benchmark delta suggests that memory bandwidth partially compensates for the compute deficit, as the MX110’s GDDR5 operates at nearly three times the bandwidth of the R5 M335’s DDR3.

The GeekBench Vulkan test shows a much larger separation. The R5 M335 scores 4758, while the MX110 manages only 3413, a delta of -28.3%. This is the single biggest performance gap in the comparison and indicates that the R5 M335’s GCN architecture handles Vulkan workloads far more efficiently than the MX110’s Maxwell design. Notably, the MX110’s Vulkan score is significantly lower than its OpenCL score, while the R5 M335’s scores are nearly identical across both APIs (4745 OpenCL, 4758 Vulkan). This suggests the MX110 has a specific weakness in Vulkan execution, despite its newer API version support.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the R5 M335’s dominance: 4752 versus 3834 for the MX110, a 23.9% overall lead. The R5 M335’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX, scores 4727 with a delta of 0.5%, meaning the R5 M335 sits at the top of its immediate performance cluster. The MX110’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 at 3823 (0.3% delta) and the Intel UHD Graphics 710 at 3792 (1.1% delta), placing it in a lower performance tier. The R5 M335 also appears near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB in its rival list, though with a -0.8% delta, which is an artifact of similar average scores rather than real-world equivalence.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335, scoring 4745 versus 4255 for the NVIDIA GeForce MX110, a 10.3% advantage.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The R5 M335 scores 4758 in GeekBench Vulkan, while the MX110 scores 3413, making the AMD part 28.3% faster.

Q: Does the MX110 have any architectural advantage?

A: Yes, its GDDR5 memory provides 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth versus 14.40 GB/s for the R5 M335’s DDR3, and it supports Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170 for the AMD part.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The R5 M335 has 320 shading units, compared to 256 for the MX110, giving it a higher theoretical compute throughput.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life. The MX110 was released in November 2017, while the R5 M335 launched in October 2015.

Q: How do their overall percentile rankings compare?

A: The R5 M335 sits in the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX110 is in the 23rd percentile, based on average benchmark scores.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins in every recorded benchmark, so its victory conditions are broad. It excels in OpenCL and Vulkan compute, with the latter being its standout result. The R5 M335’s higher shading unit count (320 versus 256), texture rate (20.60 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (659.2 GFLOPS versus 515.1 GFLOPS) make it the better choice for any workload that scales with parallel compute. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface also provides more host bandwidth than the MX110’s x4 connection, which can help in data-transfer-heavy scenarios. For users running Vulkan-based games or compute applications, the R5 M335 is clearly superior, with its 4758 Vulkan score being nearly 40% higher than the MX110’s 3413.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110’s wins are narrower and not reflected in the benchmark table. Its primary advantage is memory bandwidth: 40.10 GB/s from GDDR5 versus 14.40 GB/s from DDR3. This makes it potentially better for memory-bound tasks that do not rely heavily on shader compute, such as certain texture streaming or framebuffer operations. The MX110 also has a lower TDP at 30 W (the R5 M335 has no listed TDP), which could translate to better battery life in laptops, though the database does not include power consumption measurements. Its newer Vulkan 1.4 API support might offer better compatibility with future software, but the recorded Vulkan benchmark shows it performs worse than the R5 M335 despite this version advantage.

In practical terms, the R5 M335 is the pick for gaming and general compute, while the MX110 could be considered for legacy applications that favor bandwidth over shader count. However, given that the R5 M335 wins both head-to-head tests and has a higher average score (4752 versus 3834), it is the safer choice in almost all scenarios. The MX110’s only realistic niche is where GDDR5’s bandwidth is the deciding factor, and even then, the 28.3% Vulkan deficit looms large. The data speaks clearly: the AMD part is the stronger mobile GPU.