NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce MX110 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M

The MX110 and GT 740M are two end-of-life mobile GPUs from NVIDIA, separated by roughly four years of release timing but positioned in a similar low-end performance tier. The benchmark data shows a near-perfect split: each card wins one of the two compute tests, with the MX110 taking the OpenCL workload and the GT 740M edging ahead in Vulkan. Average benchmark scores land within 3% of each other, placing both cards in the bottom quarter of all GPUs tracked, with the MX110 at the 23rd percentile and the GT 740M at the 22nd percentile. The real story is not raw speed — it is how each card allocates its architectural resources differently, which matters more than the small score gaps suggest.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the MX110 scores 4255 against the GT 740M's 3974, a 7.1% advantage. This is the MX110's clearest win, and it aligns with the card's newer Maxwell architecture and faster GDDR5 memory. The GT 740M counters in the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 3459 versus the MX110's 3413, a 1.3% margin. That Vulkan result is close enough to be within run-to-run noise, but it is still a win for the older card, suggesting that the GT 740M's extra shader units and texture units can matter in API-overhead-bound workloads.

Looking at the wider rival landscape, the MX110's average benchmark score of 3834 puts it 0.3% ahead of the GeForce GTX 650 (3823) and 1.1% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792). It trails the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883) by 1.2% and the Quadro 2000 (3898) by 1.6%. The GT 740M's average of 3717 sits exactly level with the Quadro 3000M (3718), 0.6% ahead of the GeForce 825M (3694), and 0.6% behind the GeForce GT 635M (3740). It leads the Radeon HD 6770 (3649) by 1.9%. Neither card is a performance champion; both are trading blows with integrated graphics and entry-level discrete parts from the same era.

The OpenCL gap is the more telling metric. A 7.1% lead in a general-purpose compute test, combined with the MX110's higher memory bandwidth, indicates that the newer card handles data-throughput-heavy tasks better. The Vulkan result is a minor upset, but a 1.3% delta with only 46 points separating the scores does not indicate a fundamental advantage for the GT 740M — it is more likely a specific workload quirk where the older architecture's wider execution resources compensate for slower memory.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on TSMC's 28 nm process and pack the same 1,020 million transistors, but the similarities end there. The MX110 uses the GM108S chip with the Maxwell architecture, while the GT 740M uses the GK208 chip with Kepler 2.0. The die sizes differ notably: the MX110 measures 77 mm² against the GT 740M's 87 mm², giving the Maxwell part a higher transistor density of 13.2M per mm² versus 11.7M per mm² on Kepler.

The core configurations are the most significant divergence. The GT 740M has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, while the MX110 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the GT 740M has 50% more shader cores and double the texture units, which translates directly into its higher peak rates: 793.3 GFLOPS FP32 versus 515.1 GFLOPS, and 33.06 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s. The MX110's pixel rate of 8.048 GPixel/s is only slightly below the GT 740M's 8.264 GPixel/s, as both cards share the same 8 ROP count.

Memory is where the MX110 fights back. It uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GT 740M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 64-bit bus, managing just 14.40 GB/s. That is a 2.8x bandwidth advantage for the MX110, which explains its OpenCL win despite having fewer compute units. Clock speeds are close — the MX110 runs at 978 MHz base and 1006 MHz boost, while the GT 740M runs at 980 MHz base and 1033 MHz boost — so the bandwidth differential is the deciding factor in memory-sensitive tests.

The MX110 also has newer API support: Vulkan 1.4 versus the GT 740M's Vulkan 1.2.175, though both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The bus interfaces differ as well, with the MX110 using PCIe 3.0 x4 and the GT 740M using PCIe 3.0 x8, which may affect data transfer in bandwidth-constrained scenarios. The MX110 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and a 30 W TDP, while the GT 740M is an MXM module with a 33 W TDP and no power connectors either.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The GT 740M. It delivers 793.3 GFLOPS FP32 versus the MX110's 515.1 GFLOPS, a 54% advantage, thanks to its 384 shading units compared to 256 on the MX110.

Q: Why does the MX110 win in OpenCL despite having fewer shaders?

A: The MX110's GDDR5 memory provides 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth versus the GT 740M's 14.40 GB/s from DDR3. That 2.8x bandwidth advantage allows the Maxwell-based card to feed its compute units more effectively in data-heavy workloads.

Q: Are these two cards comparable in overall performance?

A: Yes. The MX110 has an average benchmark score of 3834 against the GT 740M's 3717, a difference of about 3.1%. They sit at the 23rd and 22nd percentiles of all GPUs, respectively, and their nearest rivals are similar low-end parts like the GeForce GTX 650 and Quadro 3000M.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 740M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MX110 has a 30 W TDP and is an IGP with no power connectors. The GT 740M has a 33 W TDP and is an MXM module with no power connectors. Both are suited to compact or mobile systems.

Q: Which card is newer?

A: The MX110 was released on 2017-11-16, while the GT 740M was released on 2013-06-19. The GT 740M's predecessor is the GeForce 600M series and its successor is the GeForce 800M series.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: pick the MX110 if your workloads are bandwidth-bound or you need the newer Vulkan feature set. Its 7.1% OpenCL lead and 40.10 GB/s of memory bandwidth make it the better choice for compute tasks that move large amounts of data. Pick the GT 740M if you are constrained to a system that accepts MXM modules and you value raw shader throughput — its 793.3 GFLOPS and 33.06 GTexel/s are head-and-shoulders above the MX110's figures, and its Vulkan score is slightly higher, albeit by a slim margin.

Neither card is a strong performer by modern standards. Both sit below the 25th percentile of all GPUs, and their nearest rivals include integrated graphics like the Intel UHD Graphics 710. The MX110's average score is 3.1% higher than the GT 740M's, which makes it the marginally faster card overall, but the GT 740M's texture rate advantage could matter in older games or applications that are shader-limited. The MX110's IGP form factor makes it easier to integrate into thin-and-light laptops, while the GT 740M's MXM form factor targets more upgradeable notebooks.

For a builder choosing between these two in 2025, the MX110 is the more sensible pick due to its newer architecture, higher bandwidth, and lower power draw. The GT 740M is only preferable if you have a specific MXM slot and need the extra shading units for shader-heavy compute. The benchmark data does not support a strong preference either way — these are two weak GPUs with different strengths, and the 1-1 split in wins reflects that balance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX110 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GM108S | GK208 |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler 2.0 |

| Generation | GeForce MX (1xx) | GeForce 700M |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 87 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 11.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 978 MHz | 980 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1006 MHz | 1033 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 40.10 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 384 |

| TMUs | 16 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.048 GPixel/s | 8.264 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 16.10 GTexel/s | 33.06 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 515.1 GFLOPS | 793.3 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2017-11-16 | 2013-06-19 |

Where Each One Wins

The MX110 wins in memory-bandwidth-bound scenarios. Its 40.10 GB/s GDDR5 throughput is nearly three times the GT 740M's, and that advantage shows up in the OpenCL benchmark score of 4255 versus 3974. For general compute, data decompression, or any workload that streams large datasets through memory, the MX110 is the better choice. It also wins on power efficiency — 30 W TDP versus 33 W — and on API modernity with Vulkan 1.4 support. Its smaller die size (77 mm²) and IGP form factor make it easier to cool and integrate into compact systems.

The GT 740M wins in shader-limited and texture-heavy scenarios. Its 384 shading units deliver 793.3 GFLOPS FP32, which is 54% higher than the MX110's 515.1 GFLOPS, and its 32 TMUs produce double the texture rate at 33.06 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s. These resources give it the edge in the Vulkan benchmark (3459 versus 3413) and suggest it would handle pixel-shader-heavy graphics workloads better. The GT 740M also has a wider bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8 versus x4), which could reduce data transfer bottlenecks in some system configurations.

For gaming specifically, the data is ambiguous. The MX110's bandwidth advantage helps with texture streaming and higher resolutions, while the GT 740M's shader and texture units help with geometry and pixel processing. The GT 740M's pixel rate of 8.264 GPixel/s is slightly higher, but the MX110's memory bandwidth is so much larger that it likely compensates in most real-world titles. The tie in wins (1-1) reflects this uncertainty — neither card has a decisive advantage across the board, so the choice depends on what your specific applications stress most.