NVIDIA GeForce 825M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 and NVIDIA GeForce 825M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they represent different generations and design philosophies. The data shows a clear overall winner in the MX110, yet the 825M retains specific advantages that matter for certain workloads. Benchmark results indicate the MX110 leads in the only direct head-to-head comparison, but a deeper look at the specifications reveals why the older 825M is not entirely obsolete.

Where Each One Wins

The MX110 wins on raw, modern compute performance. In the sole head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the MX110 scores 4255 against the 825M's 3694, a decisive 15.2% advantage. This makes the MX110 the better choice for tasks that leverage general-purpose GPU compute, such as OpenCL-accelerated applications, video encoding, or light content creation. Its higher average benchmark score of 3834 (compared to 3694) reinforces this position in the overall performance hierarchy.

The 825M wins in texture throughput and raw shader count. Despite losing the compute benchmark, it has 384 shading units versus the MX110's 256, and 32 texture mapping units (TMUs) versus 16. This results in a texture rate of 30.11 GTexel/s, which is nearly double the MX110's 16.10 GTexel/s. For older games or applications that are heavily texture-bound and rely on fill-rate rather than compute shaders, the 825M's architecture could provide smoother performance. Its higher FP32 throughput of 722.7 GFLOPS, compared to 515.1 GFLOPS on the MX110, also indicates superior raw mathematical processing capability in non-OpenCL workloads.

The MX110 also wins on memory bandwidth. Its GDDR5 memory at 5 Gbps effective delivers 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth, a massive 178% increase over the 825M's DDR3 memory at 14.40 GB/s. This advantage is critical for memory-intensive tasks like higher-resolution textures or compute workloads that frequently access video memory. The MX110's higher base clock of 978 MHz (boost 1006 MHz) versus the 825M's 850 MHz (boost 941 MHz) further contributes to its win in the OpenCL test.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The MX110 uses the GM108S chip, based on the Maxwell architecture, while the 825M uses the GK208 chip, based on the older Kepler 2.0 architecture. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and both feature 1,020 million transistors, but the die sizes differ: the MX110 is 77 mm², while the 825M is larger at 87 mm². This results in a higher transistor density for the MX110 at 13.2M / mm², compared to 11.7M / mm² for the 825M, indicating a more efficient design.

The memory subsystems are polar opposites. The MX110 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the 825M is limited to 1024 MB (1 GB) of DDR3. Both have a 64-bit bus width, but the memory type difference explains the vast bandwidth gap. The MX110's memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), whereas the 825M's is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The MX110's PCIe 3.0 x4 interface is also narrower than the 825M's PCIe 3.0 x8, which could limit data transfer speeds to the CPU in some scenarios, though the faster memory mitigates this in practice.

The shading unit configuration is markedly different. The 825M has 384 shading units and 32 TMUs, while the MX110 has only 256 shading units and 16 TMUs. Both have 8 ROPs. This means the 825M has 50% more shading units and double the texture units, giving it a theoretical advantage in pixel and texture fill operations. However, the MX110's Maxwell architecture is more efficient per clock, and its higher clocks partially compensate for the lower unit count. The MX110 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the 825M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175, offering better forward compatibility with modern APIs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a clear victory for the MX110. The MX110 scores 4255, while the 825M scores 3694, yielding a 15.2% delta in favor of the MX110. This is a substantial margin that reflects the combined benefits of faster GDDR5 memory, higher clock speeds, and architectural improvements. In practical terms, this means the MX110 will be noticeably faster in OpenCL-accelerated tasks like video transcoding, image processing, or any modern application that offloads parallel compute to the GPU.

The 825M's counter-argument relies on theoretical specifications rather than direct benchmark wins. Its FP32 performance of 722.7 GFLOPS is 40% higher than the MX110's 515.1 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 30.11 GTexel/s is 87% higher. However, these advantages did not translate into a benchmark victory. The data suggests that the Maxwell architecture's efficiency and the GDDR5 memory bandwidth are more impactful in real-world compute tests than raw shader count alone. The MX110's pixel rate of 8.048 GPixel/s is also higher than the 825M's 7.528 GPixel/s, indicating better ROP efficiency despite identical ROP counts.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two GPUs are as follows:

• Architecture: MX110 is Maxwell; 825M is Kepler 2.0.
• Chip: MX110 uses GM108S; 825M uses GK208.
• Die Size: MX110 is 77 mm²; 825M is 87 mm².
• Transistor Density: MX110 has 13.2M / mm²; 825M has 11.7M / mm².
• Base Clock: MX110 runs at 978 MHz; 825M at 850 MHz.
• Boost Clock: MX110 boosts to 1006 MHz; 825M to 941 MHz.
• Memory Size: MX110 has 2 GB; 825M has 1024 MB.
• Memory Type: MX110 uses GDDR5; 825M uses DDR3.
• Memory Clock: MX110 is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective); 825M is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).
• Memory Bandwidth: MX110 delivers 40.10 GB/s; 825M delivers 14.40 GB/s.
• Shading Units: MX110 has 256; 825M has 384.
• Texture Mapping Units: MX110 has 16; 825M has 32.
• Texture Rate: MX110 is 16.10 GTexel/s; 825M is 30.11 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: MX110 is 515.1 GFLOPS; 825M is 722.7 GFLOPS.
• TDP: MX110 is 30 W; 825M is 33 W.
• Bus Interface: MX110 is PCIe 3.0 x4; 825M is PCIe 3.0 x8.
• Vulkan Support: MX110 supports 1.4; 825M supports 1.2.175.
• Release Date: MX110 launched later (2017-11-16) versus 825M (2014-01-26).
• Predecessor/Successor: 825M has a defined predecessor (GeForce 700M) and successor (GeForce 900M); MX110 has neither listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is significantly faster, scoring 4255 compared to the 825M's 3694, a 15.2% lead.

Q: Does the 825M have any advantage over the MX110?

A: Yes, the 825M has more shading units (384 vs 256), more TMUs (32 vs 16), and higher FP32 throughput (722.7 GFLOPS vs 515.1 GFLOPS), giving it a theoretical edge in texture-heavy workloads.

Q: Why does the MX110 win despite the 825M having more shaders?

A: The MX110 benefits from GDDR5 memory with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth versus the 825M's DDR3 at 14.40 GB/s, along with higher clock speeds and a more efficient Maxwell architecture.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The MX110 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, while the 825M has 1024 MB of DDR3 also on a 64-bit bus. The MX110's memory bandwidth is nearly triple.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The MX110 has a lower TDP of 30 W compared to the 825M's 33 W, making it slightly more power-efficient despite being faster.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the 825M only supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 as the superior GPU for most users. It wins the only benchmark comparison decisively, offers double the memory capacity, and provides nearly three times the memory bandwidth. Its lower TDP and newer architecture make it the better choice for modern compute applications and any task that benefits from fast memory access. The MX110's higher average benchmark score of 3834 versus 3694, and its higher percentile rank (23rd vs 22nd), confirm its overall performance standing.

The NVIDIA GeForce 825M is not without merit. Its higher shading unit count and FP32 throughput indicate that it could outperform the MX110 in specific legacy scenarios that are purely shader-bound and do not rely on memory bandwidth. Its texture rate of 30.11 GTexel/s is a significant strength. However, these theoretical advantages failed to materialize in the OpenCL benchmark, and its smaller 1 GB frame buffer and slow DDR3 memory are severe limitations for modern games and applications. The 825M's only realistic pick is for users with older software that is optimized for Kepler architecture and does not require more than 1 GB of VRAM. For everyone else, the MX110 is the clear winner based on the benchmark evidence.