NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between these two mobile GPUs, with each claiming one of the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 posts a score of 4,255, which is 37% higher than the GT 645M's 2,680. That is a substantial margin in compute-oriented workloads, and it places the MX110 clearly ahead in this particular API. However, the GeForce GT 645M answers back in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 4,875 against the MX110's 3,413, a lead of 42.8%. This means the older Kepler part is significantly stronger in Vulkan rendering tasks, a notable reversal given the MX110's newer Maxwell architecture.

Looking at overall averages, the GT 645M holds a composite score of 4,411 across its three recorded benchmarks (Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), while the MX110 averages 3,834 from its two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan). The GT 645M's average sits 15% higher than the MX110's, but this comparison is not perfectly apples-to-apples because the GT 645M includes a Metal score that the MX110 does not have. The GT 645M's Geekbench Metal result is 5,679, which is its strongest individual benchmark, and that pulls its average upward.

When placed against their nearest rivals, each GPU occupies a similar competitive tier. The GT 645M's average of 4,411 is 0.5% above the NVIDIA GeForce 930M (4,388) and 1.2% above the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4,360), while trailing the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4,499) by 1.9%. The MX110's average of 3,834 is 0.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (3,823) and 1.1% above the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3,792), but it sits 1.2% below the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3,883) and 1.6% below the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3,898). These delta percentages show both cards clustering tightly with their direct competitors, meaning neither is an outlier in its performance class.

The percentile rankings reinforce this picture. The GT 645M lands in the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX110 sits in the 23rd percentile. That three-point difference is modest, but it aligns with the average score gap. In direct head-to-head terms, the data does not declare a single winner; instead, the choice depends on which API matters more for a given workload.

The Verdict

The benchmark evidence points to a clear conclusion: the GeForce GT 645M is the stronger overall GPU for Vulkan-based workloads and general rendering, while the GeForce MX110 is the better choice for OpenCL compute tasks. If a user's primary applications rely on Vulkan, the GT 645M's 42.8% advantage is decisive. If OpenCL is the dominant API, the MX110's 37% lead is equally compelling.

For a neutral assessment, the GT 645M edges ahead on aggregate performance. Its average benchmark score of 4,411 exceeds the MX110's 3,834 by roughly 15%, and its percentile ranking (26th versus 23rd) confirms that it sits slightly higher in the overall GPU distribution. The GT 645M also delivers a higher pixel rate (6.240 GPixel/s versus 8.048 GPixel/s, actually the MX110 wins there), but its texture rate is 24.96 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s, and its FP32 compute is 599.0 GFLOPS versus 515.1 GFLOPS. These raw throughput numbers give the GT 645M a theoretical edge in fill-rate-heavy and compute-heavy scenarios, even though the MX110 counters with faster memory bandwidth (40.10 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s).

The MX110 is not without merit. Its GDDR5 memory provides a 39% bandwidth advantage over the GT 645M's DDR3, and its higher clock speeds (978 MHz base, 1006 MHz boost versus 709 MHz base, 780 MHz boost) help it win the OpenCL test. However, these advantages do not translate into a broader performance lead. The MX110's smaller shading unit count (256 versus 384), fewer texture mapping units (16 versus 32), and fewer ROPs (8 versus 16) limit its ceiling in many workloads.

The verdict from the data: pick the GT 645M for Vulkan rendering and for applications that stress texture throughput or pixel fill, and pick the MX110 for OpenCL compute or for systems where memory bandwidth is the bottleneck. Neither card dominates across all metrics, but the GT 645M's higher average score makes it the safer default recommendation.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GT 645M wins in scenarios that depend on raw shader throughput and texture processing. With 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, it has double the texture units and ROPs of the MX110, which translates to a 24.96 GTexel/s texture rate versus 16.10 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance of 599.0 GFLOPS is 16% higher than the MX110's 515.1 GFLOPS. These specifications support the GT 645M's strong Vulkan showing, where it outperforms the MX110 by 42.8%. Games or applications that use Vulkan for rendering, such as certain modern game engines or emulators, will favor the GT 645M. Its pixel rate of 6.240 GPixel/s is lower than the MX110's 8.048 GPixel/s, so it loses in pure pixel-fill scenarios, but the texture-rate advantage compensates in many real-world workloads.

The GeForce MX110 wins in OpenCL compute and in memory-bound tasks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4,255 is 37% higher than the GT 645M's 2,680, and its GDDR5 memory delivers 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth, a 39% improvement over the GT 645M's 28.80 GB/s. The MX110's higher clock speeds (978 MHz base, 1006 MHz boost) also help it in latency-sensitive operations. OpenCL is commonly used for general-purpose GPU computing, including video encoding, image processing, and some scientific workloads, so the MX110 is the better pick for those use cases. Its smaller die size (77 mm² versus 118 mm²) and lower transistor count (1,020 million versus 1,270 million) also suggest it is a more power-efficient design, though both cards carry similar 30 W and 32 W TDP ratings.

A balanced view: the GT 645M is the rendering specialist, while the MX110 is the compute and bandwidth specialist. Users who value one over the other should let the relevant benchmark decide.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M has an average benchmark score of 4,411, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 averages 3,834. That puts the GT 645M about 15% ahead in aggregate.

Q: Does the GT 645M win every benchmark?

A: No. The two cards split their shared tests. The GT 645M wins Geekbench Vulkan with 4,875 versus 3,413 (a 42.8% lead), but the MX110 wins Geekbench OpenCL with 4,255 versus 2,680 (a 37% lead).

Q: Which GPU has better memory bandwidth?

A: The MX110 has the advantage. It uses GDDR5 memory with a 64-bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s, while the GT 645M uses DDR3 with a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s. The MX110's bandwidth is 39% higher.

Q: Are these GPUs comparable to any other models in the database?

A: Yes. The GT 645M's average score is within 2% of the GeForce 930M, Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200, and AMD Radeon R7 M260. The MX110's average is within 2% of the GeForce GTX 650, Intel UHD Graphics 710, AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, and NVIDIA Quadro 2000.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GT 645M has 384 shading units, while the MX110 has 256. The GT 645M also has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, versus 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs on the MX110.

Q: What is the performance percentile for each GPU?

A: The GT 645M falls in the 26th percentile of all GPUs, and the MX110 falls in the 23rd percentile. This indicates both are entry-level mobile parts, with the GT 645M sitting slightly higher in the overall distribution.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures, which explains much of their behavioral divergence. The GeForce GT 645M is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. The Kepler design emphasizes wider execution resources, which is why the GT 645M carries 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. This configuration suits traditional rasterization and Vulkan rendering, as evidenced by its strong Vulkan score.

The GeForce MX110 uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. It contains 1,020 million transistors on a smaller 77 mm² die, achieving a higher transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. Maxwell is a more refined architecture that improves instruction-level efficiency and memory compression, but the MX110's execution resources are pared down: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This smaller configuration limits its raw throughput, but the architecture's efficiency and the faster GDDR5 memory allow it to win the OpenCL test.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but their Vulkan support differs. The GT 645M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4. The newer Vulkan version on the MX110 suggests better API compatibility, yet the benchmark shows the GT 645M performing 42.8% better in Vulkan, indicating that hardware resource counts outweigh API version in this comparison. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and neither carries a dedicated memory interface beyond the standard bus. The GT 645M uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the MX110 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, a difference that could affect data transfer in some workloads but does not appear in the benchmark results.

The production statuses are identical: both are end-of-life. The GT 645M was released in September 2012 and belongs to the GeForce 600M generation, with the GeForce 500M as predecessor and GeForce 700M as successor. The MX110 was released in November 2017 under the GeForce MX (1xx) generation, with no predecessor or successor listed. This five-year gap in release dates explains the architectural advancement, but the benchmark data shows that newer does not automatically mean faster across all tests.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs, based on the recorded data.

• Chip: GK107 (GT 645M) versus GM108S (MX110)
• Architecture: Kepler (GT 645M) versus Maxwell (MX110)
• Generation: GeForce 600M (GT 645M) versus GeForce MX (1xx) (MX110)
• Transistors: 1,270 million (GT 645M) versus 1,020 million (MX110)
• Die Size: 118 mm² (GT 645M) versus 77 mm² (MX110)
• Transistor Density: 10.8M / mm² (GT 645M) versus 13.2M / mm² (MX110)
• Base Clock: 709 MHz (GT 645M) versus 978 MHz (MX110)
• Boost Clock: 780 MHz (GT 645M) versus 1006 MHz (MX110)
• Memory Clock: 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective (GT 645M) versus 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective (MX110)
• Memory Type: DDR3 (GT 645M) versus GDDR5 (MX110)
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit (GT 645M) versus 64 bit (MX110)
• Memory Bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s (GT 645M) versus 40.10 GB/s (MX110)
• Shading Units: 384 (GT 645M) versus 256 (MX110)
• TMUs: 32 (GT 645M) versus 16 (MX110)
• ROPs: 16 (GT 645M) versus 8 (MX110)
• Pixel Rate: 6.240 GPixel/s (GT 645M) versus 8.048 GPixel/s (MX110)
• Texture Rate: 24.96 GTexel/s (GT 645M) versus 16.10 GTexel/s (MX110)
• FP32 Performance: 599.0 GFLOPS (GT 645M) versus 515.1 GFLOPS (MX110)
• TDP: 32 W (GT 645M) versus 30 W (MX110)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 (GT 645M) versus PCIe 3.0 x4 (MX110)
• Vulkan Version: 1.2.175 (GT 645M) versus 1.4 (MX110)
• Release Date: 2012-09-30 (GT 645M) versus 2017-11-16 (MX110)

Both GPUs share a 2 GB memory size, a 28 nm process node, TSMC as the foundry, no power connectors, IGP slot width, portable device dependent display outputs, and identical DirectX and OpenGL support. Neither has a launch MSRP listed in the database.