NVIDIA GeForce 930M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data places the NVIDIA GeForce 930M ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 in both recorded tests. The 930M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5046 against 4255 for the MX110, a margin of 18.6%. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the 930M scores 3729 versus 3413, which is a 9.3% advantage. The average benchmark score reinforces this ordering, with the 930M at 4388 and the MX110 at 3834.

The 930M sits at the 26th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the MX110 lands at the 23rd percentile. This places both parts in the lower performance tier, but the 930M holds a consistent edge in every metric recorded. For users choosing between these two, the data points clearly to the 930M as the faster option. The MX110, with zero wins in the head-to-head comparison, does not outperform the 930M in any recorded test.

The closest rival to the 930M is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M, with an average score of 4411, which is 0.5% below the 930M. The MX110's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 at 3823, only 0.3% lower. These rival positions show that both parts are clustered tightly with similar-performance contemporaries, but the 930M operates in a slightly higher band overall.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same physical foundation. They use the identical GM108S chip, built on the Maxwell architecture, produced by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The transistor count is the same at 1,020 million, and the die size matches at 77 mm², yielding the same transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The shading unit count differs: the 930M has 384 shading units while the MX110 has 256. Texture mapping units also differ, with the 930M at 24 TMUs against 16 for the MX110. Both parts have 8 ROPs.

Clock speeds diverge substantially. The 930M runs at a base clock of 549 MHz and boosts to 549 MHz, meaning no boost uplift at all. The MX110 starts at 978 MHz base and boosts to 1006 MHz, a considerable higher operating frequency. Memory type also differs entirely: the 930M uses DDR3 memory running at 800 MHz with 1600 Mbps effective speed, while the MX110 uses GDDR5 at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed. The memory bus width remains a narrow 64-bit interface for both, but bandwidth reflects the memory type difference: 12.80 GB/s for the 930M versus 40.10 GB/s for the MX110.

The MX110 compensates for fewer cores with faster clocks and faster memory. Its FP32 output is 515.1 GFLOPS, well above the 421.6 GFLOPS of the similarly configured 930M. Pixel rate and texture rate follow the same pattern: the MX110 achieves 8.048 GPixel/s and 16.10 GTexel/s respectively, topping the 930M's 4.392 GPixel/s and 13.18 GTexel/s. The 930M's higher texture rate despite lower clocks comes from its larger TMU count.

The 930M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation series and the MX110 belongs to GeForce MX (1xx) series in the database. Both are end-of-life production status with integrated form factor (IGP slot width) and no power connectors required. Both parts use PCIe 3.0, but the bus interface differs: x8 lanes for the 930M and x4 for the MX110. The MX110's TDP rating is 30 W, slightly lower than the 930M's 33 W. The 930M released earlier, on 2015-03-12, and its predecessor is the GeForce 800M series with successor GeForce 10 Mobile; the MX110 released later, on 2017-11-16, with no predecessor or successor.

Both GPUs share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin in the head-to-head results belongs to the Geekbench OpenCL test. The 930M scores 5046 against 4255 for the MX110, an 18.6% lead. This substantial gap suggests the 930M's higher shading unit count (384 versus 256) provides a meaningful advantage in compute-oriented workloads even though its FP32 peak is lower. The MX110's faster GDDR5 memory bandwidth (40.10 GB/s versus 12.80 GB/s) does not overcome the core-configuration deficit in this test.

The Vulkan test narrows the gap. The 930M records 3729 against 3413 for the MX110, a 9.3% advantage. The delta between the two tests is informative: in OpenCL the 930M leads by almost one-fifth, while in Vulkan the lead shrinks to under ten percent. The MX110's higher clocks (978 MHz base versus 549 MHz base) and faster memory help it get relatively closer in the Vulkan workload, but the 930M still finishes ahead. The 930M's texture rate advantage (13.18 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s is actually lower, but the 930M still wins) is a nuance: the MX110 has a higher texture rate yet loses both benchmarks.

The average benchmark score for the 930M is 4388, which sits above its nearest rival, the GeForce GT 645M, by 0.5% on the negative side (the GT 645M is 0.5% lower). The MX110's average of 3834 compares to its nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 650, at 3823, a 0.3% difference. In both cases, the two GPUs sit near their closest competitors, but the 930M's absolute scores are higher by roughly 14% in average terms.

The wins tally is 2 for the 930M and 0 for the MX110 in the head-to-head comparison. No recorded test favors the MX110. The 930M's percentile rank of 26 versus 23 for the MX110 further confirms the ordering.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930M wins both recorded tests, with an 18.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 9.3% lead in Geekbench Vulkan over the MX110.

Q: Does the MX110 have any advantages in specifications?

A: Yes, the MX110 has a higher base clock (978 MHz versus 549 MHz), faster GDDR5 memory with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth versus 12.80 GB/s, higher FP32 output (515.1 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS), and a lower TDP of 30 W versus 33 W.

Q: Why does the 930M win if the MX110 has higher clocks and faster memory?

A: The 930M has 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units versus 256 shading units and 16 TMUs for the MX110. The larger core configuration appears to outweigh the MX110's clock and memory speed advantages in the recorded tests.

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

A: The 930M's average score of 4388 is 0.5% above the GeForce GT 645M at 4411. The MX110's average of 3834 is 0.3% above the GeForce GTX 650 at 3823.

Q: What memory types do these GPUs use?

A: The 930M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, while the MX110 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. The MX110's bandwidth is 40.10 GB/s versus 12.80 GB/s for the 930M.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked end-of-life in the database. The 930M released on 2015-03-12 and the MX110 released on 2017-11-16.

Where Each One Wins

The 930M wins in both recorded benchmarks, so the performance split is unambiguous: it is the better choice for any workload represented by Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 4388 versus 3834 for the MX110 means that, on aggregate, the 930M delivers roughly 14% higher performance. For tasks like general compute through OpenCL or graphics rendering through Vulkan, the data supports the 930M.

The MX110, despite losing every head-to-head test, does have specification advantages that may matter in specific system contexts. Its 30 W TDP is lower than the 930M's 33 W, which could make it a more power-efficient option in thermally constrained laptops. Its GDDR5 memory with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth is more than three times the 930M's 12.80 GB/s, which could benefit memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads, though the recorded benchmarks do not show this translating into a win. The MX110's higher pixel rate (8.048 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s) and higher FP32 throughput (515.1 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS) suggest it may handle fill-rate-bound or compute-heavy tasks better than the benchmarks indicate, but the recorded data shows no such victory.

The MX110's closest rival positioning also matters: it sits just 0.3% above the GeForce GTX 650, a desktop card from an older generation. The 930M's closest rival is the GeForce GT 645M, which is 0.5% below it. This places the 930M in a slightly higher performance neighborhood than the MX110, consistent with the percentile ranking of 26 versus 23.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key fields. The 930M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the MX110 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Base clock is 549 MHz for the 930M and 978 MHz for the MX110; boost clock is 549 MHz versus 1006 MHz. Memory configuration differs: both have 2 GB, but the 930M uses DDR3 at 800 MHz with 1600 Mbps effective, while the MX110 uses GDDR5 at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective. The bus width is 64-bit for both, but bandwidth is 12.80 GB/s for the 930M and 40.10 GB/s for the MX110.

Pixel rate: the 930M achieves 4.392 GPixel/s versus 8.048 GPixel/s for the MX110. Texture rate: 13.18 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s. FP32 output: 421.6 GFLOPS versus 515.1 GFLOPS. Both have no tensor cores and no RT cores, with no FP16 data recorded. TDP differs: 33 W for the 930M and 30 W for the MX110. Both are IGP form factor with no power connectors.

The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the 930M and PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX110. The 930M belongs to GeForce 900M generation, while the MX110 belongs to GeForce MX (1xx). Release dates differ: 2015-03-12 for the 930M and 2017-11-16 for the MX110. The 930M has predecessor GeForce 800M and successor GeForce 10 Mobile; the MX110 has no predecessor and no successor. Display outputs are the same for both, portable device dependent, and API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.