NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they occupy vastly different performance tiers. The MX110 is a low-power Maxwell chip designed for basic computing, while the GTX 1050 is a Pascal-based part built for entry-level gaming. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, with the GTX 1050 dominating in every measurable test, but the MX110 still holds relevance for its efficiency and integration profile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head benchmark results paint an unambiguous picture of the performance hierarchy between these GPUs. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 scores 15,233, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 manages only 4,255. This represents a delta of -72.1% for the MX110, meaning the GTX 1050 delivers roughly 3.6 times the raw compute performance in this API. The GTX 1050’s victory here is overwhelming, reflecting its substantially larger shader count and memory bandwidth.

The second comparison, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a similar but slightly narrower margin. The GTX 1050 posts 8,995 points against the MX110’s 3,413, a delta of -62.1%. While the absolute gap is smaller than in OpenCL, the GTX 1050 still more than doubles the MX110's output. This result indicates that even in a lower-level graphics API where driver overhead is reduced, the MX110’s older Maxwell architecture cannot compensate for its fundamental hardware limitations.

Across the two tests, the GTX 1050 wins 2 out of 2 comparisons, with zero wins for the MX110. The average benchmark scores reinforce this trend: the MX110 sits at 3,834, while the GTX 1050 averages 3,629, although this aggregate figure is skewed by the GTX 1050’s inclusion of many additional DirectX and Passmark tests. Looking at the shared tests only, the GTX 1050 is consistently 62-72% faster, a margin that translates to playable frame rates in the former versus slideshow-level performance in the latter for any 3D workload.

The MX110’s nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (avg score 3,823, delta 0.3%), Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3,792, delta 1.1%), and AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3,883, delta -1.2%). This places the MX110 in the company of integrated or low-end discrete parts from a previous generation. In contrast, the GTX 1050’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M (3,616, delta 0.4%), AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3,649, delta -0.5%), and NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3,596, delta 0.9%), showing it competes with older midrange desktop cards despite being a mobile chip.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 scores 15,233 versus the MX110’s 4,255, making it approximately 72% faster in this test.

Q: How does the Vulkan performance compare between the two?

A: The GTX 1050 leads with 8,995 points against the MX110’s 3,413, a 62.1% advantage for the Pascal card.

Q: What is the performance percentile rank of each GPU?

A: The MX110 sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1050 is at the 21st percentile, despite the GTX 1050 being far faster in direct comparisons.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The MX110 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the GTX 1050 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), with the latter offering feature level 12_1.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, compared to the MX110’s 256, a 2.5x increase in parallel processing capacity.

Q: Is the GTX 1050 a dual-slot card?

A: Yes, the GTX 1050 is listed as Dual-slot, whereas the MX110 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no dedicated slot width.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes, explaining the large performance gap. The MX110 uses the GM108S chip based on the Maxwell architecture, manufactured on TSMC’s 28 nm process. This older node houses 1,020 million transistors on a die size of 77 mm², yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. Maxwell was designed for efficiency over raw throughput, which suits the MX110’s low-power role.

The GTX 1050 employs the GP107 chip on the Pascal architecture, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. This more advanced node allows for 3,300 million transistors packed into a 132 mm² die, achieving a density of 25.0 million transistors per square millimeter. Pascal introduced significant improvements in clock speeds and memory compression over Maxwell, and the GTX 1050’s higher base clock of 1354 MHz (versus 978 MHz) reflects that architectural maturity.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs), compared to the MX110’s 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This gives the GTX 1050 a 2.5x advantage in shader throughput, a 2.5x advantage in texture fill, and a 4x advantage in pixel fill. The peak FP32 performance is 1.862 TFLOPS for the GTX 1050 versus 515.1 GFLOPS for the MX110, a 3.6x gap that aligns with the OpenCL benchmark results.

Memory architecture also diverges. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5, but the GTX 1050 runs on a 128-bit bus with 112.1 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX110 is limited to a 64-bit bus providing 40.10 GB/s. This bandwidth deficit is particularly crippling for the MX110 in texture-heavy workloads. The GTX 1050 also supports FP16 compute at 29.10 GFLOPS (1:64 rate), a feature the MX110 lacks entirely, and offers a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 11_0).

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards, with the GTX 1050 being superior in every performance-relevant field:

• Process Node: MX110 is 28 nm (TSMC); GTX 1050 is 14 nm (Samsung)
• Transistors: MX110 has 1,020 million; GTX 1050 has 3,300 million
• Die Size: MX110 is 77 mm²; GTX 1050 is 132 mm²
• Transistor Density: MX110 is 13.2M / mm²; GTX 1050 is 25.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: MX110 is 978 MHz; GTX 1050 is 1354 MHz
• Boost Clock: MX110 is 1006 MHz; GTX 1050 is 1455 MHz
• Memory Clock: MX110 is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective); GTX 1050 is 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective)
• Memory Bus Width: MX110 is 64 bit; GTX 1050 is 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: MX110 is 40.10 GB/s; GTX 1050 is 112.1 GB/s
• Shading Units: MX110 has 256; GTX 1050 has 640
• TMUs: MX110 has 16; GTX 1050 has 40
• ROPs: MX110 has 8; GTX 1050 has 32
• Pixel Rate: MX110 is 8.048 GPixel/s; GTX 1050 is 46.56 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: MX110 is 16.10 GTexel/s; GTX 1050 is 58.20 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: MX110 is 515.1 GFLOPS; GTX 1050 is 1.862 TFLOPS
• TDP: MX110 is 30 W; GTX 1050 is 75 W
• Slot Width: MX110 is IGP; GTX 1050 is Dual-slot
• Suggested PSU: MX110 has none; GTX 1050 requires 250 W
• Bus Interface: MX110 is PCIe 3.0 x4; GTX 1050 is PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: MX110 is Portable Device Dependent; GTX 1050 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX Support: MX110 is 12 (11_0); GTX 1050 is 12 (12_1)
• FP16 Support: MX110 has none; GTX 1050 has 29.10 GFLOPS (1:64)
• Dimensions: GTX 1050 is 145 mm (5.7 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high; MX110 has no listed dimensions
• Release Date: MX110 launched on 2017-11-16; GTX 1050 launched on 2016-10-24

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 is the clear winner for any compute or graphics workload requiring 3D acceleration. Its 3.6x advantage in FP32 performance and 2.8x memory bandwidth advantage make it suitable for entry-level gaming at 1080p with reduced settings, as well as light content creation tasks like photo editing or basic video rendering. The Vulkan score of 8,995 suggests it can handle modern game engines that leverage this API, and the DirectX 12_1 feature set provides compatibility with current titles. The GTX 1050’s dual-slot design and dedicated display outputs (HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.4a) make it a drop-in solution for desktop systems with a 250 W PSU, and its launch MSRP of 109 USD positioned it as an entry-level discrete card.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 wins in the efficiency and integration categories. With a TDP of just 30 W and no power connectors, it can be embedded into thin laptops as an IGP with zero cooling overhead. Its transistor density of 13.2M / mm² is lower than the GTX 1050’s 25.0M / mm², but the 28 nm process is cheaper to produce, making it a cost-effective solution for basic office work, video playback, and legacy DirectX 9/10 applications. The MX110’s nearest rivals are all integrated or low-end GPUs, indicating its niche is filling the gap between iGPU performance and true discrete gaming silicon. For users who never game, the MX110’s 40.10 GB/s bandwidth and 515.1 GFLOPS are more than sufficient for desktop composition, 4K video decode, and multi-monitor productivity — assuming the portable device provides adequate outputs.

In summary, the GTX 1050 is a real graphics processor for gaming and compute, while the MX110 is a graphics accelerator for basic display tasks. The 62-72% performance deltas in shared benchmarks leave no ambiguity: the GTX 1050 is the only choice for anyone running 3D workloads, while the MX110’s 30 W TDP and IGP form factor serve a completely different market segment. The data does not support any scenario where the MX110 outperforms the GTX 1050 in raw throughput, but its existence is justified by the ultra-low-power mobile segment.