GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M and the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they represent different architectural eras and performance tiers. The GT 730M, a Kepler-based part from early 2013, and the MX110, a Maxwell-based part from late 2017, offer a fascinating study in how generational efficiency and feature changes impact real-world benchmark results. While the MX110 emerges as the overall faster GPU in aggregate scoring, the GT 730M demonstrates surprising resilience in a specific API workload, making this a nuanced comparison rather than a clear-cut victory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their head-to-head benchmark wins exactly one apiece, but the margins tell a compelling story about their respective strengths. The most significant difference appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the MX110 delivers a score of 4255 against the GT 730M’s 3107. This represents a 27% advantage for the MX110, a substantial lead that underscores the newer architecture's ability to leverage its faster memory and higher clock speeds in compute-heavy workloads. The MX110’s score is not just a win; it is a decisive statement of superiority in this particular metric.

However, the Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script. Here, the GT 730M scores 3524, edging out the MX110’s 3413 by a margin of 3.3%. While a smaller delta than the OpenCL result, this Vulkan win is significant because it suggests the older Kepler architecture retains a distinct advantage in this specific graphics API. The data implies that the GT 730M’s wider memory bus (128-bit versus 64-bit) and higher pixel fill rate may provide benefits in certain low-level rendering tasks that the MX110’s higher raw compute throughput cannot overcome.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the MX110’s average benchmark score of 3834 places it in a higher performance tier than the GT 730M’s 3316. This 15.6% difference in aggregate performance is consistent with the OpenCL result, suggesting that the MX110 is the more capable GPU for most general-purpose and compute-oriented tasks. The GT 730M’s Vulkan performance, while a clear win, appears to be the exception rather than the rule. Furthermore, the MX110’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650, from which it trails by only 0.3%, and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, which it trails by 1.2%. This proximity to a desktop GTX-class card highlights the MX110’s relative competence, whereas the GT 730M’s nearest rivals are more modest integrated and entry-level discrete parts, such as the Intel HD Graphics 530, from which it trails by 0.5%, and the NVIDIA GeForce 920M, which it beats by 0.9%.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

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

Q: How much faster is the MX110 in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The MX110 scores 4255 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 27% higher than the GT 730M’s score of 3107. This is the largest performance gap between the two in any tested benchmark.

Q: Does the GT 730M win any benchmark against the MX110?

A: Yes, the GT 730M wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 3524, outperforming the MX110’s 3413 by a margin of 3.3%.

Q: How does the MX110 compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650?

A: The MX110’s average score of 3834 is only 0.3% lower than the GTX 650’s average score of 3823, making them statistically very close in overall performance.

Q: What is the closest rival to the GT 730M in terms of average score?

A: The closest rival to the GT 730M is the NVIDIA GeForce 920M, which has an average score of 3287. The GT 730M is 0.9% ahead of this part.

Q: Is the MX110’s lead in compute consistent across all APIs?

A: No, the data shows a split. The MX110 holds a 27% lead in OpenCL, but the GT 730M takes a 3.3% lead in Vulkan, indicating that the performance relationship is API-dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The GT 730M is built on the Kepler architecture (chip GK107), while the MX110 uses the Maxwell architecture (chip GM108S). Although both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, their transistor budgets and die sizes differ considerably. The GT 730M packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². In contrast, the MX110 uses 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 13.2M per mm². This indicates that Maxwell is a more efficient design, fitting more transistors per area.

The compute core configurations also diverge sharply. The GT 730M features 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The MX110, despite being newer, has fewer of each: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This reduction in core count is offset by much higher clock speeds, with the MX110 running at a base of 978 MHz and a boost of 1006 MHz, compared to the GT 730M’s static 725 MHz for both base and boost. The MX110 also supports a newer version of the Vulkan API (1.4 versus 1.2.175), though both cap out at DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

Beyond the core architecture, the specifications reveal key differences in memory and interface design. The most striking contrast is in memory type and bandwidth. The GT 730M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The MX110 also has 2 GB of memory but opts for GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, which paradoxically provides higher bandwidth at 40.10 GB/s. This 39% increase in memory bandwidth is a primary factor in the MX110’s superior OpenCL performance, as compute tasks are often memory-bound.

The clock speeds for memory also differ, with the GT 730M running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) and the MX110 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The MX110’s boost clock of 1006 MHz is over 280 MHz higher than the GT 730M’s maximum, contributing to its higher pixel rate of 8.048 GPixel/s versus 5.800 GPixel/s. Interestingly, the GT 730M offers a higher texture rate of 23.20 GTexel/s compared to the MX110’s 16.10 GTexel/s, thanks to its greater number of TMUs. The FP32 compute also slightly favors the GT 730M at 556.8 GFLOPS versus 515.1 GFLOPS, yet the MX110 wins the OpenCL benchmark, suggesting that memory bandwidth and driver efficiency play a more decisive role.

Finally, the bus interface and power profile differ. The GT 730M is an MXM module using a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the MX110 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) using a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface. The GT 730M has a higher TDP of 33 W compared to the MX110’s 30 W. Both have no power connectors and rely on portable device-dependent display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data points to a clear division of labor. The MX110 is the definitive winner in compute-heavy and general-purpose tasks. Its 27% lead in OpenCL, combined with its higher average benchmark score, makes it the better choice for applications that leverage GPU acceleration for video encoding, photo editing, or any workload that taps into OpenCL compute. Its higher memory bandwidth and clock speeds give it a decisive edge in these scenarios. The MX110’s performance is also comparable to a desktop GTX 650, indicating it is a more serious performer for its class.

Conversely, the GT 730M’s sole victory in the Vulkan benchmark suggests it may be preferable in specific modern gaming or rendering scenarios that utilize this low-level API. The 3.3% lead, while modest, is consistent and indicates that the Kepler architecture’s wider memory bus and higher texture fill rate can be advantageous in certain draw-call-heavy or texture-bound situations. The GT 730M also has a higher FP32 compute rating, which could theoretically benefit certain older or more specialized applications that are not reflected in the OpenCL score.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is the superior GPU for most users. Its 15.6% higher average benchmark score and 27% advantage in OpenCL make it the clear choice for anyone prioritizing compute performance or general GPU acceleration. The MX110’s higher memory bandwidth and clock speeds are the likely drivers of this success, and its placement near the GTX 650 in the performance rankings confirms its more capable standing. For a laptop user seeking the better all-around discrete GPU for everyday tasks and modern applications, the MX110 is the data-backed pick.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M, however, is not without merit. Its win in the Vulkan benchmark, albeit narrow, shows that it holds a specific advantage that the MX110 cannot match. This makes the GT 730M an interesting option for users who primarily engage with Vulkan-based titles or applications where that API’s performance is critical. Its higher texture rate and FP32 compute also suggest it might have untapped potential in certain legacy workloads. Ultimately, the choice depends on the user’s primary software ecosystem: the MX110 for broad compute and OpenCL dominance, or the GT 730M for a specific, yet measurable, Vulkan edge.