Intel HD Graphics P4600 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records a single head-to-head comparison between these two graphics solutions, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 scores 4255 points against 3389 points for the Intel HD Graphics P4600. That represents a 25.6% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a substantial margin that places these two products in different performance tiers despite their shared integrated-class positioning.

Looking at the broader database context, the MX110's average benchmark score of 3834 places it at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 sits at the 20th percentile with an average score of 3389. The percentile gap might seem modest, but the raw score difference tells a clearer story: the MX110 delivers roughly 13% higher average performance across all recorded tests compared to the P4600.

The nearest rival data reinforces this separation. The MX110's closest competitors include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (average score 3823, a mere 0.3% difference) and the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792, 1.1% behind). Meanwhile, the P4600's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431, with the P4600 trailing by 1.2%) and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M (3434, trailing by 1.3%). What this means is that the MX110 competes in a performance bracket roughly 400 points higher than the P4600's bracket, a consistent and meaningful gap.

The MX110 also records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3413, a test that the P4600 does not appear in the database for. This absence itself is informative: the P4600's API support tops out at Vulkan 1.0, while the MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4, making the Vulkan test an option only for the newer architecture.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing generations. The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 uses the GM108S chip built on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The chip contains 1,020 million transistors packed into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel HD Graphics P4600, by contrast, uses the Haswell GT2 chip on Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture, built on Intel's own 22 nm process. The database does not record transistor count or die size for the Intel part, but the process node difference alone is significant: Intel's 22 nm process is newer than TSMC's 28 nm node, though the MX110's dedicated graphics design compensates with a much larger transistor budget.

The memory subsystems could hardly be more different. The MX110 comes with 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The P4600 uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This is a fundamental architectural distinction: the MX110 has its own memory pool and does not compete with the CPU for bandwidth, while the P4600 must share the system's memory controller and bus with the processor. In practice, this gives the MX110 a massive advantage in bandwidth-sensitive workloads, as dedicated GDDR5 at 5 Gbps effective speed is far faster than typical shared system memory configurations from the Haswell era.

Compute resources differ in interesting ways. The MX110 fields 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The P4600 has 160 shading units, 20 TMUs, but only 2 ROPs. The shading unit advantage is clear for NVIDIA, with 60% more shaders, but Intel actually has more texture units, 20 versus 16. That explains some of the texture rate numbers: the P4600 achieves 24.00 GTexel/s while the MX110 manages 16.10 GTexel/s. However, the pixel rate tells the opposite story: the MX110 delivers 8.048 GPixel/s versus just 2.400 GPixel/s for the Intel part, a 3.4x advantage driven by the MX110's 8 ROPs against 2.

Clock behavior also differs substantially. The MX110 runs at a 978 MHz base clock with a 1006 MHz boost, a narrow range that reflects its dedicated, always-on design. The P4600 has a 350 MHz base clock that boosts to 1200 MHz, a much wider dynamic range typical of Intel's integrated graphics, which idle aggressively to save power. The higher boost clock helps Intel close the gap in some texture-bound workloads, but the low base clock and shared memory undermine sustained performance.

FP32 compute follows the shading unit counts: the MX110 produces 515.1 GFLOPS against 384.0 GFLOPS for the P4600, a 34% advantage for NVIDIA. Neither part records FP16 performance in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The MX110 wins in scenarios that demand memory bandwidth, pixel throughput, and raw compute. Its dedicated 40.10 GB/s GDDR5 memory means it can sustain high fill rates and large data transfers without contending with the CPU. The 8.048 GPixel/s pixel rate is more than three times the P4600's 2.400 GPixel/s, so any workload that writes heavily to the framebuffer, such as higher resolution rendering or post-processing effects, will strongly favor the NVIDIA part. The 515.1 GFLOPS FP32 throughput also gives it an edge in general-purpose compute tasks, including OpenCL acceleration in applications that can leverage it.

The P4600's advantages are narrower but real. Its 20 TMUs give it a higher texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s, a 49% advantage over the MX110's 16.10 GTexel/s. This means texture-heavy workloads that are not bandwidth-limited, such as certain older games or texture filtering tasks, can run relatively better on the Intel part. The 1200 MHz boost clock also helps the P4600 respond quickly to short bursts of demand, though it cannot sustain that speed under load due to thermal and power constraints typical of integrated graphics.

The API support also splits in interesting ways. The MX110 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The P4600 lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The MX110's newer OpenGL and Vulkan support makes it more compatible with modern graphics applications, while the P4600's OpenGL 4.3 is notably older. However, the P4600's DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level is slightly higher than the MX110's 11_0, which could matter for certain DirectX 12 titles that require the 11_1 feature level.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for most use cases. The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 outperforms the Intel HD Graphics P4600 by 25.6% in the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, and its average benchmark score is 13% higher overall. It has dedicated memory, more shading units, more ROPs, and roughly a third more FP32 compute. For anyone choosing between these two for light gaming, media acceleration, or OpenCL workloads, the MX110 is the stronger option based strictly on recorded numbers.

The Intel HD Graphics P4600 retains a narrow appeal. Its higher texture rate and larger TMU count make it competitive in texture-bound tasks, and its 84 W TDP in a system context is accompanied by the simplicity of shared memory, which requires no dedicated VRAM allocation. However, the P4600's 2 ROPs and system shared memory are severe limitations for any modern graphics workload. The 20th percentile ranking versus the MX110's 23rd percentile confirms that the database places the P4600 in a lower performance class.

The production status of both parts is end-of-life, so this comparison is most relevant for legacy systems or secondhand purchases. The MX110's 2017 release date versus the P4600's 2013 release date means the NVIDIA part benefits from four additional years of architecture development, which shows in the benchmark results. Neither part supports modern gaming at competitive settings, but for basic acceleration and light workloads, the MX110 is the clear data-backed choice.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 than the Intel HD Graphics P4600 in OpenCL performance?

A: The MX110 scores 4255 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 3389 for the P4600, a 25.6% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 has 256 shading units, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 has 160 shading units, giving NVIDIA a 60% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics P4600 have any advantage over the MX110?

A: Yes, the P4600 has more texture mapping units (20 versus 16) and a higher texture rate (24.00 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s), along with a higher boost clock of 1200 MHz versus 1006 MHz.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The MX110 uses 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. The P4600 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has better API support for modern applications?

A: The MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6, while the P4600 supports Vulkan 1.0 and OpenGL 4.3. The P4600 does have a slightly higher DirectX 12 feature level (11_1 versus 11_0).

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these two GPUs?

A: The MX110 has a TDP of 30 W, while the P4600 has a TDP of 84 W. Both use IGP slot width and do not require separate power connectors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX110 | Intel HD Graphics P4600 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Generation 7.5 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | Not recorded |

| Base Clock | 978 MHz | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1006 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 40.10 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 256 | 160 |

| TMUs | 16 | 20 |

| ROPs | 8 | 2 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.048 GPixel/s | 2.400 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 16.10 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 515.1 GFLOPS | 384.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | 84 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | Ring Bus |

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

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.3 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.0 |

| Release Date | 2017-11-16 | 2013-05-31 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 3834 | 3389 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 23rd | 20th |