GPU Comparison

The benchmark data shows a clear, if narrow, overall win for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M over the NVIDIA GeForce MX110. The GT 755M secures the only head-to-head victory, posting a 16% higher score in Geekbench OpenCL. However, the MX110 counters with a more modern feature set and significantly lower power draw, making the choice heavily dependent on the user's priorities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is definitive in favor of the older card. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 scores 4255. This translates to a 16% performance advantage for the GT 755M, a substantial margin that indicates a clear tier difference in raw compute throughput.

This 16% lead in the OpenCL test aligns with the cards' average benchmark scores. The GT 755M holds an average score of 4033, placing it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs. The MX110, with an average score of 3834, sits just below in the 23rd percentile. While the head-to-head delta is larger, the overall average scores suggest that in a broader range of tasks, the GT 755M maintains a lead, albeit a smaller one of roughly 5%.

Interestingly, the GT 755M's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel HD Graphics 630, which scores 4075 and is 1% faster than the GT 755M, and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB, which scores 4093 and is 1.5% faster. This context shows that the GT 755M is competitive with integrated graphics solutions from a later era, though it trails them slightly. Conversely, the MX110's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650, which scores 3823 and is 0.3% slower, indicating that the MX110 is positioned at the very entry-level of discrete GPU performance, barely edging out a much older desktop card.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural generations from NVIDIA, which explains their contrasting characteristics. The GT 755M is built on the Kepler architecture, utilizing the GK107 chip, while the MX110 is based on the newer Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the silicon designs differ significantly.

The Kepler chip in the GT 755M is a larger, more complex piece of silicon. It contains 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 10.8M / mm². In contrast, the Maxwell chip in the MX110 is leaner, with 1,020 million transistors packed into a much smaller 77 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 13.2M / mm². This shows that Maxwell was a more efficient design, allowing for a smaller, denser chip.

These architectural differences manifest directly in the compute resources. The GT 755M is equipped with 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The MX110, by comparison, has fewer of each: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This substantial reduction in execution resources is the primary reason for the MX110's lower computational performance.

The memory subsystems also differ fundamentally. Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the GT 755M uses a 128-bit memory bus, whereas the MX110 uses a 64-bit bus. This halving of the bus width has a massive impact on bandwidth, with the GT 755M achieving 86.40 GB/s compared to the MX110's 40.10 GB/s. This is a critical distinction, as memory bandwidth often becomes a bottleneck in gaming and other graphics-intensive tasks.

Finally, the bus interface differs: the GT 755M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the MX110 uses the narrower PCIe 3.0 x4 connection. This lower lane count further limits the MX110's ability to communicate quickly with the host system.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is the clear winner in raw computational performance. Its 16% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, coupled with a 2x advantage in memory bandwidth (86.40 GB/s vs 40.10 GB/s) and double the ROPs (16 vs 8), makes it the superior option for tasks that are heavily parallelized or demand high texture fill rates. The data suggests it is better suited for gaming at higher resolutions or detail settings where bandwidth and pixel throughput are critical. Its higher texture rate of 32.64 GTexel/s compared to the MX110's 16.10 GTexel/s reinforces this, indicating a strong advantage in filling detailed 3D scenes.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 wins decisively in efficiency and modern software support. Its 30 W TDP is significantly lower than the GT 755M's 50 W, making it a far better fit for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermal management are paramount. While the GT 755M is a removable MXM Module, the MX110 is an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor), likely soldered to the motherboard, which also points to a more integrated, power-saving design.

Software compatibility is another area where the newer card has an edge. The MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4, a more recent version of the graphics API than the Vulkan 1.2.175 supported by the GT 755M. This means the MX110 is more future-proof for newer titles that leverage the latest Vulkan features. Both cards have identical DirectX support at 12 (11_0) and OpenGL at 4.6.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specifications where the two NVIDIA GPUs differ, based on the provided data.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M | NVIDIA GeForce MX110 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |

| Chip | GK107 | GM108S |

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

| Transistors | 1,270 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 10.8M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 980 MHz | 978 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1020 MHz | 1006 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz / 5.4 Gbps effective | 1253 MHz / 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 86.40 GB/s | 40.10 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 256 |

| TMUs | 32 | 16 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.160 GPixel/s | 8.048 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.64 GTexel/s | 16.10 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 783.4 GFLOPS | 515.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is faster. It scores 4934 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is a 16% improvement over the MX110's score of 4255.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The GT 755M has a massive advantage with 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth, more than double the MX110's 40.10 GB/s, due to its 128-bit bus versus the MX110's 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is more power-efficient, with a TDP of 30 W compared to the GT 755M's 50 W.

Q: Do these GPUs support modern graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 755M only supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GT 755M features 384 shading units, while the MX110 has 256.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each?

A: The GT 755M has an average score of 4033, placing it in the 24th percentile. The MX110 has an average score of 3834, placing it in the 23rd percentile.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is the superior choice for users who prioritize performance above all else. Its 16% lead in the OpenCL benchmark, combined with significantly higher memory bandwidth (86.40 GB/s vs 40.10 GB/s) and double the texture fill rate (32.64 GTexel/s vs 16.10 GTexel/s), makes it the clear winner for gaming and GPU-accelerated applications that can leverage its full compute power. Users looking for a discrete GPU with the strongest possible performance in this comparison should select the GT 755M.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is the better option for users who value efficiency and modern software support. Its 30 W TDP is substantially lower than the GT 755M's 50 W, making it ideal for ultraportable laptops where battery life is critical. Furthermore, its support for Vulkan 1.4 ensures better compatibility with future software titles. While it is slower, it is also a more modern and power-conscious design. In short, choose the GT 755M for raw power and the MX110 for efficiency and API currency.