NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M takes a narrow win in the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 4282 against the MX110’s 4255. That is a 0.6% margin, which is small enough to be considered a statistical tie in real-world workloads, but the database records it as a win for the older Fermi part.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110, however, has an additional data point that the GTX 460M lacks: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3413. This means the MX110 has a measurable advantage in modern API execution, at least in the database’s recorded tests. The GTX 460M has no Vulkan result recorded, which suggests it may not support the API at all, or at least the database does not have a verified score for it.

Looking at the broader percentile rankings, the GTX 460M sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX110 sits at the 23rd percentile. Both are low-end parts by modern standards. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the GTX 460M averages 4282, the MX110 averages 3834. That difference is driven entirely by the MX110’s lower Vulkan score, since the OpenCL results are nearly identical.

For use-case splits, the GTX 460M wins in pure OpenCL compute throughput by a hair. The MX110 wins in API coverage, offering both OpenCL and Vulkan paths. If a workload can leverage Vulkan, the MX110 is the only one of the two with recorded capability. If a workload is locked to OpenCL, the GTX 460M edges ahead, but not by a meaningful margin.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap here is substantial. The GTX 460M is built on Fermi, the architecture used in the GeForce 400M series. The MX110 is built on Maxwell, from the GeForce MX (1xx) generation. Fermi was designed around 2010, Maxwell around 2014, and that generation gap shows in almost every internal metric.

The process node tells the story: the GTX 460M uses a 40 nm process at TSMC, while the MX110 uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. That is a full node jump, which explains why the MX110 packs a much higher transistor density: 13.2M transistors per square millimeter versus 4.9M for the GTX 460M. The MX110’s die is only 77 mm², versus 238 mm² for the GTX 460M, yet it holds 1,020 million transistors versus 1,170 million. The newer process allows far more logic per area.

The chip names are different too: the GTX 460M uses the GF106 chip, the MX110 uses the GM108S. Both have 1,170 million and 1,020 million transistors respectively, but the MX110 crams them into a third of the die area.

The memory configuration differs significantly. The GTX 460M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192 bit bus, yielding 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX110 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64 bit bus, yielding 40.10 GB/s. That is a massive bandwidth disadvantage for the MX110, nearly a third lower.

The shading units favor the MX110: 256 versus 192 for the GTX 460M. But the GTX 460M has more texture mapping units (32 versus 16) and more render output units (24 versus 8). The MX110’s pixel rate is higher at 8.048 GPixel/s versus 5.400 GPixel/s, but the GTX 460M’s texture rate is higher at 21.60 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s. The FP32 figures are nearly identical: 518.4 GFLOPS for the GTX 460M, 515.1 GFLOPS for the MX110.

The MX110 has a Vulkan API version of 1.4, while the GTX 460M has no Vulkan listing at all. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The MX110 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface, while the GTX 460M uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

The power envelope is another clear split: the GTX 460M has a 50 W TDP, the MX110 has a 30 W TDP. The GTX 460M is an MXM module with no power connectors, while the MX110 is an IGP with no power connectors. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 460M scores 4282, the MX110 scores 4255. The delta is 0.6% in favor of the GTX 460M. That is a narrow win, well within run-to-run variance for most OpenCL workloads.

The MX110’s Vulkan score of 3413 is not mirrored by any GTX 460M result. That absence matters because it shows the MX110 can engage a modern graphics API, while the GTX 460M cannot, in the recorded data. The GTX 460M’s lack of a Vulkan score is likely due to architectural limitations, as Fermi predates Vulkan support.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the GTX 460M sits between the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, 0.3% faster) and the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268, 0.3% slower). It is also close to the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241, 1% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335, 1.2% slower). The RTX 4070 GDDR6 being in that list is a curiosity, but the data is what it is: the GTX 460M is within 1.2% of a much newer card in this one OpenCL test.

The MX110’s nearest rivals paint a similar picture. It sits between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (3823, 0.3% slower) and the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792, 1.1% slower). It is also near the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, 1.2% faster) and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898, 1.6% faster).

The average benchmark scores tell a larger story. The GTX 460M averages 4282, while the MX110 averages 3834. That is an 11.7% gap, driven almost entirely by the MX110’s Vulkan score being lower than its OpenCL score. The MX110’s OpenCL score is close to the GTX 460M’s, but its Vulkan score drags the average down.

The Verdict

The data points in opposite directions depending on the workload. For OpenCL compute, the GTX 460M is the winner, albeit by a slim 0.6% margin. The recorded score of 4282 versus 4255 is a genuine lead, but it is small enough that most users will not notice a difference in real applications.

For modern API support, the MX110 is the clear pick because it has a Vulkan score. The GTX 460M has none. If an application requires Vulkan, the MX110 is the only option.

For bandwidth-sensitive workloads, the GTX 460M is better on paper: 60.00 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s. That is a 50% advantage. But the OpenCL scores are nearly equal, suggesting the bandwidth advantage does not translate into compute wins.

For power efficiency, the MX110 wins. Its 30 W TDP is 60% of the GTX 460M’s 50 W TDP. For notebook users, that may matter more than any performance delta.

For texture-heavy workloads, the GTX 460M has a 34% higher texture fill rate (21.60 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s). For pixel-heavy workloads, the MX110 has a 49% higher pixel rate (8.048 GPixel/s versus 5.400 GPixel/s).

The verdict: choose the GTX 460M if you need maximum OpenCL throughput and can tolerate a higher TDP. Choose the MX110 if you need Vulkan support, lower power consumption, or a more efficient chip. The performance gap is small in compute, but the API and efficiency gaps are structural.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The GTX 460M scores 4282 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the MX110 scores 4255, a 0.6% lead for the GTX 460M.

Q: Does the GTX 460M support Vulkan?

A: No, the database has no Vulkan score for the GTX 460M. The MX110 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3413.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The MX110 has 256 shading units, while the GTX 460M has 192 shading units.

Q: Which GPU has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 460M has a bandwidth of 60.00 GB/s, while the MX110 has 40.10 GB/s.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The GTX 460M has a TDP of 50 W, while the MX110 has a TDP of 30 W.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 460M has an average score of 4282, while the MX110 averages 3834.

Specification Differences

| Specification | GTX 460M | MX110 |

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

| Generation | GeForce 400M | GeForce MX (1xx) |

| Chip | GF106 | GPX |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Die Size | 238 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 1,020 million |

| Transistor Density | 4.9M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 1536 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 60.00 GB/s | 40.10 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 256 |

| TMUs | 32 | 16 |

| ROPs | 24 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.400 GPixel/s | 8.048 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 21.60 GTexel/s | 16.10 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 518.4 GFLOPS | 515.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | 30 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Vulkan | Not available | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2010-09-02 | 2017-11-16 |