NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 830M and NVIDIA GeForce MX110 are both entry-level mobile GPUs built on the same Maxwell architecture, but the benchmark data reveals a clear, if narrow, performance hierarchy. Across the two available tests, the older 830M takes a decisive victory in both, though the margins are modest enough that real-world differences will be subtle. This analysis breaks down exactly where each chip stands, using only the measured scores and specifications provided.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the GeForce 830M wins both benchmark comparisons, securing a 2–0 record against the MX110. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the 830M scores 4,324 points against the MX110’s 4,255, yielding a 1.6% advantage. That is a slim margin, but it is consistent. The gap widens in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the 830M posts 3,590 points versus the MX110’s 3,413, a more pronounced 5.2% lead. For Vulkan workloads, which tend to scale with driver efficiency and raw compute throughput, the 830M’s higher clock speeds appear to pay off.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this ordering. The 830M carries an average score of 3,957, placing it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs. The MX110, by contrast, averages 3,834, sitting at the 23rd percentile. While both are firmly in entry-level territory, the 830M’s percentile advantage, however small, is backed by a higher raw average. The delta between their averages is roughly 3.1%, which aligns with the OpenCL margin but undersells the Vulkan gap.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context for how close these two actually are. The 830M’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R5 M420, which averages 3,956 — a 0% delta. That means the 830M and the R5 M420 are effectively tied, with the 830M edging ahead only in the decimals. The MX110’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650, averaging 3,823 with a 0.3% delta in the MX110’s favor. Notably, the MX110 also sits 1.1% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 710 and 1.2% behind the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics. These rival comparisons show that both chips occupy a crowded, tightly packed performance band where a few percentage points separate winners from losers.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 830M wins outright in raw compute tests, but the nature of the wins matters. Its OpenCL advantage of 1.6% suggests that general-purpose compute tasks, such as OpenCL-accelerated filters or physics calculations, will run slightly faster on the 830M. The Vulkan margin of 5.2% is more significant; Vulkan-based games or applications that leverage the API’s low overhead will see a more tangible benefit from the 830M’s higher base and boost clocks. Specifically, the 830M runs at a 1082 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost, while the MX110 runs at 978 MHz base and 1006 MHz boost. That is a 104 MHz base gap and a 144 MHz boost gap, which directly translates into the 830M’s higher pixel rate (9.200 GPixel/s vs. 8.048 GPixel/s) and texture rate (18.40 GTexel/s vs. 16.10 GTexel/s).

The MX110, however, is not without its own strengths, though they do not show up in the benchmark wins column. Its memory subsystem is substantially faster: it uses GDDR5 memory at 5 Gbps effective, yielding 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the 830M’s DDR3 at 1800 Mbps effective, which delivers only 14.40 GB/s. That 2.8x bandwidth advantage is a massive specification gap, but it does not translate into benchmark victories in the two tests recorded. In memory-bound scenarios that are not captured here, such as higher-resolution texture streaming, the MX110 could theoretically close the gap. Yet the data as provided shows zero wins for the MX110, so any such advantage remains speculative. For users prioritizing compute benchmarks, the 830M is the clear choice; for those who value memory bandwidth, the MX110 has the specification edge but no measured proof of superiority.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score overall?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M, with an average benchmark score of 3,957 versus the MX110’s 3,834. The 830M also wins both individual tests: 4,324 vs. 4,255 in OpenCL and 3,590 vs. 3,413 in Vulkan.

Q: Is the GeForce MX110 a worthy upgrade over the 830M?

A: No, based on the data. The MX110 loses both head-to-head tests and has a lower average score (3,834 vs. 3,957). While it uses faster GDDR5 memory, the 830M’s higher clock speeds keep it ahead in every measured workload.

Q: How does the 830M compare to its closest rival?

A: The 830M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 M420, which averages 3,956 — a 0% delta. The two are effectively tied, with the 830M’s 3,957 average being a marginal 1-point lead.

Q: What is the MX110’s closest competitor?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650, which averages 3,823. The MX110 leads by 0.3%, while also sitting 1.1% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 710 and 1.2% behind the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics.

Q: Why does the 830M win the Vulkan test by a larger margin?

A: The 830M’s boost clock is 1150 MHz versus the MX110’s 1006 MHz, a 144 MHz difference. This higher clock speed contributes to a 5.2% Vulkan advantage, likely due to better fixed-function throughput in API-level tasks.

Q: Are both GPUs equally outdated?

A: Both are end-of-life, but the 830M is from the GeForce 800M generation (released March 2014), while the MX110 is from the GeForce MX (1xx) generation (released November 2017). Despite the 3.5-year gap, the 830M remains faster in benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share the same core configuration but diverge on clocks, memory, and interface. Both have 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The 830M runs at a 1082 MHz base clock and 1150 MHz boost, while the MX110 runs at 978 MHz base and 1006 MHz boost. Memory is the biggest differentiator: the 830M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s bandwidth; the MX110 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 64-bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s. The 830M’s memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the MX110’s is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Pixel and texture rates follow the clock speeds. The 830M achieves 9.200 GPixel/s and 18.40 GTexel/s, while the MX110 achieves 8.048 GPixel/s and 16.10 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is also higher on the 830M: 588.8 GFLOPS vs. 515.1 GFLOPS. The MX110 has a lower TDP at 30 W compared to the 830M’s 33 W. The bus interface differs as well: the 830M uses PCIe 3.0 x8, the MX110 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. Both are IGP slot width, have no power connectors, and share the same transistor count (1,020 million) and die size (77 mm²).

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, using the 28 nm process at TSMC. The 830M uses the GM108 chip, while the MX110 uses the GM108S variant — the “S” designation typically indicating a re-spin or minor revision, though the specs show identical transistor counts and die sizes. Both have 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M / mm². Neither supports ray tracing or tensor cores, as reflected by null values for RT and tensor core counts. FP16 performance is also null for both, meaning they operate at full FP32 rates without half-precision acceleration.

The API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The generation names differ, with the 830M belonging to “GeForce 800M” and the MX110 to “GeForce MX (1xx),” but this is a marketing distinction rather than an architectural one. The MX110’s predecessor and successor fields are null, indicating it was a standalone entry in the MX line, while the 830M has a defined predecessor (GeForce 700M) and successor (GeForce 900M). Display outputs are portable-device dependent for both, meaning laptop manufacturers determine the actual ports.

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal: the NVIDIA GeForce 830M is the faster GPU. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average score (3,957 vs. 3,834), and sits one percentile higher (24th vs. 23rd). Its higher clock speeds — 1082/1150 MHz vs. 978/1006 MHz — drive superior pixel, texture, and FP32 rates, making it the better choice for compute-heavy tasks and Vulkan-based applications. The 5.2% Vulkan margin is the largest gap between the two and is the single strongest argument for choosing the 830M.

The MX110’s only tangible advantage is memory bandwidth: 40.10 GB/s vs. 14.40 GB/s, thanks to GDDR5 versus DDR3. In theory, this could benefit memory-intensive workloads, but no benchmark in the provided data confirms this. The MX110 also has a slightly lower TDP (30 W vs. 33 W), which may marginally extend battery life in laptops. However, a 3 W difference is unlikely to be noticeable in practice.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the 830M is the safer pick for raw performance. It is older — released in 2014 versus 2017 — but age does not diminish its benchmark lead. The MX110 makes sense only if memory bandwidth is a specific priority and the user accepts lower compute scores. Given that the 830M wins both tests and the MX110 wins none, the verdict is straightforward: pick the 830M for performance, pick the MX110 only if the faster memory interface is an absolute requirement. The percentiles and rival deltas confirm both are entry-level parts, but within that tier, the 830M sits at the top.