NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data splits these two mobile GPUs almost perfectly down the middle. The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 wins one head-to-head test, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M wins the other. The decisive factor is the workload type. In OpenCL compute tasks, the MX110 holds a commanding lead of 36.9% over the GT 730M, scoring 4255 versus 3107. In Vulkan graphics workloads, the GT 730M edges ahead by 3.1%, scoring 3524 against the MX110’s 3413.

For users whose primary applications lean on general-purpose compute, OpenCL acceleration, or content creation pipelines that use this API, the MX110 is the clear choice. Its average benchmark score of 3834 places it at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 730M sits at the 20th percentile with an average of 3316. That 518-point average gap (approximately 15.6% higher for the MX110) reflects the MX110’s stronger overall throughput in the database’s aggregated measurements.

For gaming or graphics-rendering workloads that rely on Vulkan, the GT 730M is the better pick, albeit by a slim margin. The 3.1% Vulkan advantage is modest, and the GT 730M’s lower average score overall means that outside this specific API test, the MX110 generally performs better. The GT 730M also offers a wider memory bus and more texture units, which may benefit certain geometry-heavy or texture-bound scenarios, but the recorded benchmarks only show one Vulkan victory.

The MX110 is the more modern part, released later, and it delivers the higher average benchmark score. The GT 730M, while older, still holds its own in one specific API test. The decision comes down to the target application. Compute-heavy users should select the MX110. Vulkan-focused users can reasonably choose the GT 730M, though they sacrifice significant OpenCL performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 has an average benchmark score of 3834, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M’s 3316. This places the MX110 at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 730M sits at the 20th percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The MX110 scores 4255 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GT 730M scores 3107. This gives the MX110 a 36.9% advantage, its largest win in the head-to-head tests.

Q: Which GPU wins in the Vulkan benchmark, and by how much?

A: The GT 730M wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 3524, compared to the MX110’s 3413. That is a 3.1% advantage for the GT 730M.

Q: What is the closest rival to the MX110 based on average score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 is the nearest rival to the MX110, with an average score of 3823, a delta of only 0.3%. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883) and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898) are also close, with deltas of -1.2% and -1.6% respectively.

Q: What is the closest rival to the GT 730M based on average score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 920M is the nearest rival, with an average score of 3287, a delta of 0.9%. The Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332, delta -0.5%) and Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389, delta -2.2%) are also nearby.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures differ between the two?

A: The MX110 has a memory bandwidth of 40.10 GB/s, while the GT 730M has 28.80 GB/s. Despite this, the GT 730M has a wider 128-bit memory bus compared to the MX110’s 64-bit bus.

Architecture Differences

The MX110 is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture using the GM108S chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GT 730M uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This generational split explains several key differences in transistor density and feature support. 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 GT 730M contains 1,270 million transistors on a much larger 118 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. The Maxwell design achieves higher density and better efficiency per transistor.

The MX110 belongs to the GeForce MX (1xx) generation, while the GT 730M is part of the GeForce 700M series. The GT 730M has a predecessor in the GeForce 600M series and a successor in the GeForce 800M series, whereas the MX110 has no listed predecessor or successor. Both GPUs are end-of-life products, but the MX110 was released later, in November 2017, compared to the GT 730M’s January 2013 release.

In terms of API support, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 730M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. This newer Vulkan version on the MX110 does not translate into a benchmark win in the Vulkan test, as the GT 730M actually scores higher in that specific workload. The MX110 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface, while the GT 730M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which provides four times the lane bandwidth for data transfer.

The MX110 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and a 30 W TDP. The GT 730M is a MXM module with no power connectors and a 33 W TDP. Both have portable device dependent display outputs, meaning their connectors vary by laptop implementation.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification. The MX110 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The GT 730M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the GT 730M has 50% more shading units, double the TMUs, and double the ROPs. Despite this hardware advantage, the GT 730M’s lower clocks hold it back in some tests.

Clock speeds favor the MX110 significantly. The MX110 runs at a base clock of 978 MHz and a boost clock of 1006 MHz. The GT 730M runs at a fixed 725 MHz for both base and boost, meaning it has no dynamic boosting capability. The MX110’s higher clocks partially compensate for its smaller core configuration.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The MX110 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 40.10 GB/s. The GT 730M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) and bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The MX110’s GDDR5 memory provides 39.2% more bandwidth despite the narrower bus, because the faster memory clock compensates for the width disadvantage.

Theoretical throughput rates also differ. The MX110 achieves a pixel rate of 8.048 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 16.10 GTexel/s. The GT 730M achieves 5.800 GPixel/s and 23.20 GTexel/s. The MX110 wins on pixel fill rate by 38.8%, while the GT 730M wins on texture fill rate by 44.1%. In raw FP32 compute, the MX110 delivers 515.1 GFLOPS, while the GT 730M delivers 556.8 GFLOPS, a 8.1% advantage for the GT 730M.

The MX110 has a 30 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), while the GT 730M has a 33 W TDP and is an MXM module. Both lack power connectors and neither has a suggested PSU listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head benchmarks show a clear split. In Geekbench OpenCL, the MX110 scores 4255 against the GT 730M’s 3107. This is a 36.9% delta in favor of the MX110, the largest performance gap in either direction. The MX110’s GDDR5 memory and higher clock speeds clearly benefit this compute workload. Interestingly, the GT 730M’s higher FP32 rating (556.8 GFLOPS versus 515.1 GFLOPS) does not translate into an OpenCL victory. The MX110’s newer architecture and faster memory bandwidth appear to be the deciding factors.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the GT 730M scores 3524, beating the MX110’s 3413 by 3.1%. This is a much narrower margin than the OpenCL gap. The GT 730M’s superior texture rate (23.20 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s) and larger number of shading units (384 versus 256) likely contribute to this result. The Vulkan test may be more sensitive to the GT 730M’s wider core configuration, whereas the OpenCL test favors the MX110’s faster memory subsystem.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the MX110’s overall advantage. The MX110 averages 3834 across all tests, while the GT 730M averages 3316. That is a 15.6% difference in the MX110’s favor. The MX110’s percentile ranking of 23rd versus the GT 730M’s 20th percentile also confirms this hierarchy in the broader GPU landscape.

The nearest rivals for each GPU provide additional context. The MX110’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650, with an average score of 3823 and a delta of only 0.3%. The GT 730M’s closest rival is the Intel HD Graphics 530, with an average score of 3332 and a delta of -0.5%. The GT 730M also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce 920M (3287, delta 0.9%) but trails the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389, delta -2.2%). The MX110 outperforms the GT 730M by a larger margin than it trails the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, delta -1.2%) or NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898, delta -1.6%).

Where Each One Wins

The MX110 wins decisively in compute-oriented workloads. Its 36.9% OpenCL advantage over the GT 730M is the single largest performance gap in the data. This makes it the better choice for applications that leverage OpenCL for general-purpose computation, such as video encoding, image processing, physics simulations, or any task that offloads parallel work to the GPU. The MX110’s faster GDDR5 memory, higher clock speeds, and newer Maxwell architecture all contribute to this dominance. Its average benchmark score of 3834, which is 15.6% higher than the GT 730M’s 3316, indicates that the MX110 is the stronger overall GPU in the database’s aggregated measurements.

The GT 730M wins in Vulkan graphics workloads, albeit by a modest 3.1%. Its score of 3524 versus 3413 shows a narrow but consistent advantage in this API test. The GT 730M’s larger core configuration (384 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs) and higher texture fill rate (23.20 GTexel/s) likely give it an edge in geometry processing and texture-heavy rendering scenarios. The GT 730M also benefits from a wider 128-bit memory bus, which can help in certain bandwidth-sensitive graphics tasks, even though its DDR3 memory runs slower than the MX110’s GDDR5. For users running Vulkan-based games or applications, the GT 730M delivers slightly better performance.

The MX110 also wins on efficiency metrics. It has a lower TDP (30 W versus 33 W), a smaller die size (77 mm² versus 118 mm²), and higher transistor density (13.2M per mm² versus 10.8M per mm²). This makes it a better fit for thin-and-light laptops where power draw and heat dissipation are constrained. The GT 730M, as an MXM module, is designed for more traditional notebook form factors.

The GT 730M’s strengths lie in its raw core count and texture throughput, but these advantages do not translate into a higher average score. The MX110’s architectural efficiency and memory bandwidth give it the overall performance lead. The database’s percentile rankings confirm this: the MX110 sits at the 23rd percentile, while the GT 730M sits at the 20th percentile. For users who need a balanced mobile GPU, the MX110 is the safer recommendation based on the recorded data. For users who specifically target Vulkan workloads, the GT 730M offers a small but measurable advantage.