NVIDIA GeForce 820A vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a decisive result for the NVIDIA GeForce MX110. The MX110 scores 4255, while the GeForce 820A scores 2983. That is a 42.6% advantage for the MX110, a substantial gap that places the two chips in different performance tiers despite their shared 28 nm manufacturing process and similar entry-level positioning.

Looking at the percentile rankings reinforces this separation. The MX110 sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the 820A sits at the 19th percentile. Neither card is going to win any awards among modern enthusiast hardware, but the MX110 is clearly the stronger of the two based on the recorded measurements.

The nearest rival data provides additional context. The MX110's average benchmark score of 3834 places it within 0.3% of the GeForce GTX 650 (3823), roughly 1.1% above the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792), and only 1.2% below the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883). This clustering suggests the MX110 performs in a well-populated band of low-end GPUs, where tiny percentage swings separate competitors. For the 820A, the average score of 2983 lands it 0.5% ahead of the GeForce GTX 860M (2967), 1% above the GeForce GTX 750 Ti (2953), and 2.1% behind the Quadro P600 (2923). Notably, the 820A also edges out the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB by 2.4% in this particular benchmark, which is an oddity of the aggregated data but worth noting as a reminder that average benchmark scores do not always reflect real-world gaming or compute workloads.

The 42.6% delta in the head-to-head OpenCL test is the single most important number in this comparison. It is not a marginal win; it is a dominant one. The MX110 delivers roughly 1.4 times the raw OpenCL performance of the 820A, which should translate into meaningfully better results in any OpenCL-accelerated application.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures, and that distinction matters more than the shared 28 nm node might suggest. The MX110 is built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, while the 820A uses the older Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF117 chip. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the transistor counts tell very different stories.

The MX110 packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The 820A, by contrast, has only 585 million transistors spread across a larger 116 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 5.0 million transistors per square millimeter. This is a remarkable difference: the MX110 crams nearly 74% more transistors into a die that is 34% smaller. The architectural efficiency gains of Maxwell over Fermi 2.0 are starkly visible in these numbers.

The memory subsystems diverge as well. The MX110 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, achieving 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The 820A uses only 1 GB of DDR3 memory, also on a 64-bit bus, but manages just 16.02 GB/s. That is a 2.5x bandwidth advantage for the MX110, which is critical for memory-bound workloads. The memory clock difference is equally pronounced: the MX110 runs at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective transfer, while the 820A runs at 1001 MHz with 2 Gbps effective.

The compute resources are also heavily skewed. The MX110 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The 820A has 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The shading unit count is a 2.67x difference in favor of the MX110. Pixel rate and texture rate follow suit: the MX110 delivers 8.048 GPixel/s and 16.10 GTexel/s, compared to 2.500 GPixel/s and 10.00 GTexel/s for the 820A. FP32 performance is 515.1 GFLOPS versus 240.0 GFLOPS, again a decisive MX110 advantage.

The bus interfaces differ as well. The MX110 connects via PCIe 3.0 x4, while the 820A uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Both are integrated graphics packages (IGP) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The MX110 carries a 30 W TDP, double the 820A's 15 W, which is a reasonable trade-off given the performance gap.

API support is mostly aligned, with both supporting DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the MX110 lists Vulkan 1.4 support, while the 820A has no Vulkan entry in the database. That is a meaningful feature difference for anyone running Vulkan-based games or applications.

Where Each One Wins

The MX110 wins in every measurable category in the database. It has higher raw benchmark scores, more shading units, faster memory, higher bandwidth, better pixel and texture rates, and more FP32 compute. It also has twice the memory capacity, a newer architecture, and Vulkan support. The 820A's only advantages are its lower 15 W TDP and its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, though the practical benefit of the wider interface is questionable given the GPU's modest performance.

For OpenCL compute workloads, the MX110 is the clear choice. The 42.6% head-to-head advantage means tasks like image processing, physics simulation, or GPU-accelerated filters will complete noticeably faster. For gaming, the MX110's higher shading unit count, faster GDDR5 memory, and higher pixel rate should provide a smoother experience at low to medium settings, though neither card is suited for demanding titles.

The 820A could be preferable in scenarios where power consumption is the primary constraint. Its 15 W TDP is exactly half the MX110's 30 W, which could matter in ultra-portable devices or systems with very limited thermal headroom. However, the performance penalty is severe: the 820A delivers less than half the FP32 throughput and less than half the memory bandwidth of the MX110.

The architecture difference also matters for longevity. The Maxwell-based MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4, which means it can run modern Vulkan titles and applications. The Fermi 2.0-based 820A has no Vulkan support at all, effectively locking it out of a growing portion of the modern GPU software ecosystem. For someone buying used hardware today, this alone could be a deciding factor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 scores 4255 versus 2983 for the GeForce 820A, a 42.6% advantage for the MX110.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU have?

A: The MX110 has 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the 820A has 16.02 GB/s with 1 GB of DDR3 memory.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The MX110 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the 820A has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The MX110 has a 30 W TDP, while the 820A has a 15 W TDP. The 820A uses half the power but delivers substantially lower performance.

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

A: The MX110's average score of 3834 is within 0.3% of the GeForce GTX 650 and 1.1% above the Intel UHD Graphics 710. The 820A's average score of 2983 is 0.5% above the GeForce GTX 860M and 1% above the GeForce GTX 750 Ti.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The MX110 has 256 shading units, while the 820A has 96, a 2.67x difference in favor of the MX110.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Chip: GM108S (MX110) versus GF117 (820A)
• Architecture: Maxwell versus Fermi 2.0
• Generation: GeForce MX (1xx) versus GeForce 800A
• Transistors: 1,020 million versus 585 million
• Die Size: 77 mm² versus 116 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.2M / mm² versus 5.0M / mm²
• Memory Size: 2 GB versus 1024 MB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 versus DDR3
• Memory Clock: 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective)
• Memory Bandwidth: 40.10 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s
• Shading Units: 256 versus 96
• Pixel Rate: 8.048 GPixel/s versus 2.500 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 16.10 GTexel/s versus 10.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 515.1 GFLOPS versus 240.0 GFLOPS
• TDP: 30 W versus 15 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x4 versus PCIe 2.0 x16
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 versus not listed
• Release Date: 2017-11-16 versus 2014-03-16
• Predecessor: Not listed versus GeForce 700A
• Successor: Not listed versus GeForce 900A

The TMU count (16) and ROP count (8) are identical, as are the 64-bit memory bus width, the 28 nm process node, the foundry (TSMC), and the integrated graphics form factor.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is the superior GPU in nearly every measurable way. It wins the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark by 42.6%, has 2.67x the shading units, 2.5x the memory bandwidth, 2.15x the FP32 compute, and double the memory capacity. It also brings a newer architecture, Vulkan support, and a higher transistor density that reflects a much more efficient design.

The 820A's sole advantage is power consumption. At 15 W, it draws exactly half the power of the MX110's 30 W. This could make it the right choice for a system with extremely tight thermal or power budgets, where even 30 W is too much. But the performance cost is severe, and the lack of Vulkan support limits its usefulness in modern software.

For anyone choosing between these two for a low-end laptop or portable device, the MX110 is the obvious pick if power constraints allow. It delivers roughly 43% more OpenCL performance, better memory bandwidth, and modern API support, all for an additional 15 W of power draw. The 820A belongs to an older era of NVIDIA's mobile lineup, and the benchmark data reflects that lineage clearly. The MX110 is a generational leap forward in efficiency and capability, and the recorded data shows it is the stronger choice in all but the most power-sensitive scenarios.