GPU Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce MX110 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M

The MX110 and GT 735M are two end-of-life mobile GPUs from NVIDIA, separated by roughly four and a half years of release timing and a full architecture generation shift. The MX110 is built on Maxwell with the GM108S chip, while the GT 735M uses the older Kepler 2.0 architecture with the GK208 die. Both are integrated into laptops as IGP solutions with no power connectors, targeting entry-level 3D acceleration and multimedia tasks rather than high-end gaming. The benchmark data here is limited to a single shared test, but that test reveals a clear performance hierarchy between the two.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is unambiguous. The MX110 scores 4,255 points, while the GT 735M scores 3,616 points. That represents a 17.7% advantage for the MX110, which is a substantial margin in the entry-level segment where every bit of compute throughput matters. The MX110 wins this benchmark outright, and the GT 735M has no countervailing win in any other test category, the head-to-head tally stands at one win for the MX110 and zero for the GT 735M.

Breaking down why the MX110 leads is instructive. Despite having fewer shading units, 256 versus 384 for the GT 735M, the MX110 compensates with much higher clock speeds. Its base clock runs at 978 MHz with a boost of 1006 MHz, compared to the GT 735M's paltry 575 MHz base and 628 MHz boost. That is a 70% higher base clock and a 60% higher boost clock for the MX110. Even with fewer cores, the raw frequency advantage translates into a higher FP32 throughput: 515.1 GFLOPS for the MX110 versus 482.3 GFLOPS for the GT 735M. The MX110 also has a substantial memory bandwidth advantage, delivering 40.10 GB/s over a 64-bit GDDR5 interface, while the GT 735M manages only 14.40 GB/s over a 64-bit DDR3 bus. That is a 178% bandwidth difference, which is critical for memory-bound workloads like OpenCL compute.

The pixel rate tells a similar story: the MX110 achieves 8.048 GPixel/s versus 5.024 GPixel/s for the GT 735M. However, the GT 735M does win in one specification category, texture rate. With 32 TMUs and its higher core count, the GT 735M reaches 20.10 GTexel/s, while the MX110 produces 16.10 GTexel/s from its 16 TMUs. This suggests that in texture-heavy workloads that are not bandwidth-limited, the GT 735M could close some of the gap, but the actual benchmark data shows the MX110 pulling ahead decisively in OpenCL compute.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the MX110's average score of 3,834 places it at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 at 3,823 (0.3% slower), Intel UHD Graphics 710 at 3,792 (1.1% slower), AMD Radeon R5 Graphics at 3,883 (1.2% faster), and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 at 3,898 (1.6% faster). The GT 735M, by contrast, sits at the 21st percentile with an average score of 3,616. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 at 3,629 (0.3% faster), NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation at 3,596 (0.6% slower), NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 at 3,594 (0.6% slower), and AMD Radeon HD 6770 at 3,649 (0.9% faster). The MX110 not only beats the GT 735M directly, but it also clusters with a slightly faster set of rivals in the percentile rankings.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner: the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 outperforms the GT 735M in the only available direct comparison by 17.7%. The MX110's higher average benchmark score (3,834 versus 3,616) and better percentile standing (23rd versus 21st) reinforce this conclusion. If you are choosing between these two for a legacy laptop purchase or upgrade, the MX110 is the stronger choice for general compute tasks and any workload that leverages OpenCL.

However, the GT 735M is not without its own merits, even if they do not show up in the benchmark tally. Its higher texture fill rate (20.10 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s) and larger shading unit count (384 versus 256) mean that in certain texture-bound scenarios, it could theoretically perform competitively. But the benchmark evidence does not support this in practice, the MX110's bandwidth and clock speed advantages overwhelm the GT 735M's architectural strengths.

For users who prioritize compute performance, OpenCL acceleration, or light gaming, the MX110 is the pick. For those who need broader API compatibility, specifically Vulkan 1.4 support on the MX110 versus Vulkan 1.2.175 on the GT 735M, the MX110 again takes the lead. The GT 735M's only practical advantage is its lower TDP of 33 W versus 30 W for the MX110, but that is marginal and the MX110 still comes out ahead on efficiency per unit of performance. In short, the MX110 is the superior GPU in nearly every measurable way.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct architectural generations from NVIDIA. The MX110 uses the Maxwell architecture, built on the GM108S chip, which was designed to improve performance-per-watt over its predecessors. Maxwell introduced better scheduling efficiency and reduced power consumption per shader, which helps explain how the MX110 achieves higher clocks at a similar power envelope. The GT 735M, on the other hand, uses Kepler 2.0 architecture with the GK208 chip. Kepler was NVIDIA's first architecture to emphasize scalar cores over vector processing, but it did so at lower clock speeds and with less memory bandwidth efficiency than later designs.

Both GPUs are manufactured on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, and both use 1,020 million transistors. The die sizes differ slightly: the MX110's GM108S measures 77 mm², while the GT 735M's GK208 is 87 mm². This gives the MX110 a higher transistor density at 13.2M per mm² versus 11.7M per mm² for the GT 735M. The smaller die with identical transistor count means the MX110 packs more logic into less space, which contributes to its efficiency advantages.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The MX110 uses GDDR5 memory at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, delivering 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 735M uses DDR3 memory at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective speed, delivering only 14.40 GB/s. Both have 2 GB of memory on a 64-bit bus, but the memory type alone accounts for a massive bandwidth gap. In terms of API support, both offer DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4 while the GT 735M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175.

Specification Differences

The MX110 and GT 735M differ across nearly every core specification. The MX110 has a base clock of 978 MHz and a boost clock of 1006 MHz, while the GT 735M runs at 575 MHz base and 628 MHz boost. The MX110 uses 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs; the GT 735M uses 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate favors the MX110 at 8.048 GPixel/s versus 5.024 GPixel/s, but texture rate favors the GT 735M at 20.10 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is higher on the MX110 at 515.1 GFLOPS versus 482.3 GFLOPS.

Memory differs by type and speed: the MX110 uses GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, while the GT 735M uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for 14.40 GB/s. Both have 2 GB capacity and a 64-bit bus. TDP is slightly lower on the MX110 at 30 W versus 33 W for the GT 735M. Bus interface differs as well: the MX110 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the GT 735M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 735M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Release dates are November 2017 for the MX110 and March 2013 for the GT 735M, with the GT 735M having the GeForce 600M as predecessor and GeForce 800M as successor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The MX110 scores 4,255 points in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 17.7% higher than the GT 735M's 3,616 points.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4 while the GT 735M only supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU have?

A: The MX110 provides 40.10 GB/s via GDDR5, while the GT 735M provides 14.40 GB/s via DDR3, a 178% difference in favor of the MX110.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GT 735M has 384 shading units, while the MX110 has 256. However, the MX110's much higher clock speeds result in higher FP32 compute.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life products. The MX110 was released in November 2017, and the GT 735M was released in March 2013.

Q: Which GPU has a lower TDP?

A: The MX110 has a TDP of 30 W, while the GT 735M has a TDP of 33 W. Both are IGP solutions with no power connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The MX110 wins in raw compute performance, memory bandwidth, pixel throughput, and API compatibility. Its OpenCL score is 17.7% higher, its FP32 rate is 6.8% higher, and its bandwidth is more than double. It also offers newer Vulkan support and a smaller die size with higher transistor density. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, light photo editing, or older games that rely on pixel processing, the MX110 is the clear choice.

The GT 735M wins in texture throughput, its 20.10 GTexel/s beats the MX110's 16.10 GTexel/s by 24.8%. It also has more shading units and TMUs, which could benefit workloads that are heavily parallelized and not bandwidth-constrained. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface provides double the bus lanes of the MX110's x4 interface, which could matter in data-transfer-heavy scenarios. However, the benchmark data does not show any actual test where the GT 735M outperforms the MX110.

In practical terms, the MX110 is the better all-around mobile GPU. The GT 735M's advantages are mostly theoretical, they appear in specification sheets but do not translate into benchmark wins. The MX110's architecture, clocks, and memory subsystem simply outclass the older Kepler part in the one test that matters. If you are building a legacy system or evaluating used laptops, the MX110 should be preferred over the GT 735M for any compute-focused task.