AMD Radeon R5 M420 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

The GeForce MX110 takes the single head-to-head benchmark win, but the Radeon R5 M420 is not far behind in raw compute. In Geekbench OpenCL, the MX110 scores 4255 against the R5 M420’s 3956, a delta of -7% for the AMD part. That is a meaningful but not overwhelming gap—roughly seven percent separates the two in this synthetic workload. However, the MX110 also has a Vulkan score of 3413, which the R5 M420 lacks entirely, so NVIDIA’s chip offers broader API coverage in the data. Both parts sit at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs, meaning neither is a performance leader; they are entry-level mobile parts that trade blows with older discrete cards. The R5 M420’s average benchmark score is 3956, while the MX110’s average—pulled down by the Vulkan result—is 3834, so the AMD chip actually has a higher average across all recorded tests despite losing the OpenCL contest. This is a case where the single head-to-head metric tells only part of the story.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the MX110 wins it decisively enough to matter. NVIDIA’s chip scores 4255, which is 299 points higher than the R5 M420’s 3956. In percentage terms, that is a 7% advantage for the MX110. For context, the R5 M420’s nearest rivals include the GeForce 830M at 3957 (a 0% delta) and the GT 745M at 3953 (0.1% faster), so the AMD part is right in line with older mid-range NVIDIA mobile GPUs. The MX110, meanwhile, sits near the GeForce GTX 650 at 3823 (0.3% slower) and the Intel UHD Graphics 710 at 3792 (1.1% slower), meaning it punches slightly above the R5 M420’s weight class. The delta of -7% is not a blowout; it is closer to a solid, repeatable win for the MX110 in compute workloads.

The MX110 also posts a Vulkan score of 3413, which is not directly comparable to the R5 M420 because no Vulkan result exists for the AMD chip. That absence is itself a data point: the R5 M420 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 in its API list, but the benchmark database does not contain a corresponding score. The MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer revision, and its actual Vulkan performance trails its own OpenCL result by about 20% (3413 vs 4255). For the R5 M420, the only recorded benchmark is OpenCL, so its average score equals that single result at 3956. The MX110’s average across both tests is 3834, which is lower than the R5 M420’s average because the Vulkan number drags it down. This means that in a purely average-score sense, the AMD part looks better, but in the specific test where both have data, the NVIDIA part wins.

Looking at the rival sets reinforces the picture. The R5 M420’s closest competitor is the GeForce 830M at 3957, a negligible 0% difference. The Quadro K2000 is 0.2% faster at 3964, and the HD 6850 X2 is 0.5% faster at 3977. None of these deltas exceed half a percent, so the R5 M420 sits in a very tight cluster of older mid-range parts. The MX110’s nearest rivals are spread wider: the GTX 650 is 0.3% faster, the UHD Graphics 710 is 1.1% slower, the Radeon R5 Graphics is 1.2% faster, and the Quadro 2000 is 1.6% faster. The MX110’s cluster is more varied, but its OpenCL score of 4255 puts it clearly above the R5 M420’s 3956 in that test. The data shows a single, consistent winner in the head-to-head, but the margin is modest and the average-score picture is reversed.

The Verdict

From the data, the MX110 is the better choice if OpenCL compute is your priority. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 7%, and it adds a Vulkan score that the R5 M420 cannot match. The MX110 also has a higher boost clock (1006 MHz vs 850 MHz) and significantly faster memory (40.10 GB/s vs 16.00 GB/s), which likely explains its OpenCL advantage despite fewer shading units (256 vs 320). The R5 M420’s higher shading unit count and texture rate (17.00 GTexel/s vs 16.10 GTexel/s) do not translate into a benchmark win—the GDDR5 memory and higher clocks on the NVIDIA side win out. If you are choosing between these two for a laptop, the MX110 is the safer bet for any GPU-accelerated task that uses OpenCL or Vulkan.

However, the R5 M420 has its own argument. Its average benchmark score of 3956 is higher than the MX110’s 3834, because the MX110’s Vulkan result is notably lower than its OpenCL result. If you only care about the single OpenCL test, the MX110 wins. If you care about consistency across all recorded workloads, the R5 M420 looks better on paper. The AMD part also has 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB on the MX110, which matters for workloads that exceed 2 GB of VRAM. The R5 M420 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) while the MX110 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), so the AMD part has a slight edge in API version there. For a pure compute workload, pick the MX110. For a system where memory capacity and average performance matter more than peak OpenCL, the R5 M420 is defensible.

Neither part is a performance champion—both sit at the 23rd percentile, and both are end-of-life products. The MX110’s nearest rival is the GTX 650, a desktop card from 2012, while the R5 M420’s nearest rival is the GeForce 830M, a mobile part from 2014. These are legacy chips, and the data reflects that. If you are building or buying a system with one of these, expect entry-level performance, not gaming prowess. The MX110 wins the head-to-head, but the R5 M420 is not embarrassed by the result.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different architectural lineages. The R5 M420 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The MX110 uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. That is a significant transistor count difference—the NVIDIA chip packs about 48% more transistors into a 37.5% larger die. The transistor density is slightly higher on the NVIDIA side: 13.2M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm² for AMD. The R5 M420’s chip is codenamed Jet, while the MX110’s is GM108S. Both are integrated into laptops (slot width is listed as IGP for both), and both are end-of-life.

The memory subsystems are starkly different. The R5 M420 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX110 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 40.10 GB/s—2.5 times the bandwidth. This is the single biggest architectural differentiator and likely explains the MX110’s OpenCL win. The R5 M420 makes up some ground with more shading units (320 vs 256) and more TMUs (20 vs 16), but both have 8 ROPs. The pixel rate favors the MX110 at 8.048 GPixel/s versus 6.800 GPixel/s, while the texture rate slightly favors the R5 M420 at 17.00 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is close: the R5 M420 delivers 544.0 GFLOPS, the MX110 delivers 515.1 GFLOPS, so the AMD chip has a 5.6% theoretical compute advantage that the benchmark does not reflect.

API support also differs. The R5 M420 lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX110 lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer Vulkan revision on the NVIDIA side aligns with its actual Vulkan benchmark score. The R5 M420 has a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the MX110 has PCIe 3.0 x4—the AMD part has double the bus lanes. Neither has RT cores or tensor cores, and neither supports FP16 (both list null). The MX110 has a TDP of 30 W, while the R5 M420 lists no TDP value. Power connectors are absent on the MX110, and none are listed for the R5 M420.

Specification Differences

The most important differences are in memory, clocks, and compute units. The R5 M420 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the MX110 has 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Bandwidth is 16.00 GB/s for AMD and 40.10 GB/s for NVIDIA—a 150% advantage for the MX110. The R5 M420’s base clock is 780 MHz with a boost of 850 MHz; the MX110’s base is 978 MHz with a boost of 1006 MHz. That is a 198 MHz boost clock advantage for NVIDIA. The R5 M420 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the MX110 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The AMD part has more compute units but lower clocks and slower memory.

Pixel rate favors the MX110 at 8.048 GPixel/s versus 6.800 GPixel/s, a 18% advantage. Texture rate is nearly even: 17.00 GTexel/s for AMD, 16.10 GTexel/s for NVIDIA, a 5.6% AMD advantage. FP32 is also close: 544.0 GFLOPS for AMD, 515.1 GFLOPS for NVIDIA, a 5.6% AMD advantage. The MX110 has a listed TDP of 30 W; the R5 M420 has none. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD, PCIe 3.0 x4 for NVIDIA. Transistor count is 690 million on AMD’s 56 mm² die versus 1,020 million on NVIDIA’s 77 mm² die. Release dates differ by about 18 months: the R5 M420 launched in May 2016, the MX110 in November 2017. The R5 M420’s generation is "Gem System (R5 M400)," while the MX110’s is "GeForce MX (1xx)."

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 wins the only head-to-head test (Geekbench OpenCL) with a score of 4255 versus the AMD Radeon R5 M420’s 3956, a delta of -7% for the AMD part.

Q: Does the R5 M420 have any advantage in compute performance?

A: Yes. The R5 M420 has a higher FP32 rating at 544.0 GFLOPS versus 515.1 GFLOPS for the MX110, and a higher texture rate at 17.00 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s. It also has more shading units (320 vs 256) and TMUs (20 vs 16).

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The MX110 has 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, while the R5 M420 has 16.00 GB/s from 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The MX110’s bandwidth is about 150% higher.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The R5 M420 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the MX110 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. The MX110 has a Vulkan benchmark score (3413), but the R5 M420 has no recorded Vulkan score.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The R5 M420 is within 0.5% of the GeForce 830M, GT 745M, Quadro K2000, and HD 6850 X2 in average score. The MX110 ranges from 1.6% slower than the Quadro 2000 to 1.1% faster than the Intel UHD Graphics 710.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The R5 M420 has an average benchmark score of 3956 (from one OpenCL test). The MX110 has an average of 3834 (from OpenCL and Vulkan tests), with the Vulkan score of 3413 lowering its average below its OpenCL score of 4255.

Where Each One Wins

The MX110 wins in raw compute throughput where memory bandwidth matters. Its 40.10 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth, combined with higher clocks (1006 MHz boost vs 850 MHz), delivers a 7% OpenCL win over the R5 M420. It also has a Vulkan score, which the R5 M420 lacks, and a newer Vulkan revision (1.4 vs 1.2.170). The MX110’s pixel rate is 18% higher (8.048 GPixel/s vs 6.800 GPixel/s), making it the better choice for tasks that fill pixels, such as basic image processing or older games at low settings. Its TDP is listed at 30 W, so it is a known quantity for thermal design.

The R5 M420 wins in theoretical compute and memory capacity. It has 4 GB of VRAM versus 2 GB, which is a clear advantage for workloads that exceed 2 GB of framebuffer. Its FP32 rating is 5.6% higher (544.0 GFLOPS vs 515.1 GFLOPS), and its texture rate is 5.6% higher (17.00 GTexel/s vs 16.10 GTexel/s). It also has a higher average benchmark score (3956 vs 3834) because the MX110’s Vulkan result drags its average down. The R5 M420’s PCIe 3.0 x8 interface doubles the bus bandwidth of the MX110’s x4 link, which could matter for data transfers. Its DirectX 12 (11_1) support is one revision newer than the MX110’s (11_0).

For a practical choice, the MX110 is the pick if you want the best OpenCL score and have a workload that fits in 2 GB of memory. The R5 M420 is the pick if you need 4 GB of VRAM or want a higher average benchmark score across all tests. Neither is a gaming GPU—both sit at the 23rd percentile—but the MX110’s faster memory and clocks give it the edge in the one benchmark where both have data. The R5 M420’s higher compute and texture ratings are real, but they do not show up in the head-to-head result. If you are choosing between these two, decide based on memory capacity versus raw OpenCL speed. The data says the MX110 wins the benchmark, but the R5 M420 wins the average.