NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce MX110 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti are both Maxwell-based, end-of-life mobile and desktop parts respectively, but the recorded data shows they occupy entirely different performance tiers. The GTX 750 Ti wins every direct benchmark comparison in the database, and its advantage is not marginal. Across the two shared tests, the GTX 750 Ti leads by 60.7% and 66.1%, respectively, while the MX110 trails in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs compared to the GTX 750 Ti's 19th percentile, a counterintuitive result that reflects the GTX 750 Ti's wider test coverage and higher absolute scores in compute and graphics workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The win split is unambiguous: the GTX 750 Ti wins all head-to-head benchmarks. The MX110 has zero recorded wins in the database. The GTX 750 Ti takes both the Geekbench OpenCL test (10827 vs 4255) and the Geekbench Vulkan test (10065 vs 3413). This means for any workload that leverages general-purpose compute, GPU-accelerated rendering, or Vulkan-based graphics, the GTX 750 Ti is the stronger choice.

The MX110, by contrast, shows no benchmark category where it outperforms the GTX 750 Ti. Its only recorded scores, 4255 in OpenCL and 3413 in Vulkan, are lower than the GTX 750 Ti's scores in the same tests. The MX110's average benchmark score of 3834 is higher than the GTX 750 Ti's average of 2953, but this is a statistical artifact of test coverage: the MX110 only has two benchmarks, both compute-oriented, while the GTX 750 Ti includes lower-scoring DirectX and 2D tests that drag down its average. In direct comparisons, the GTX 750 Ti is always ahead.

For users prioritizing compute throughput, Vulkan gaming, or OpenCL acceleration, the GTX 750 Ti is the clear winner. The MX110's only potential advantage is its 30 W TDP and IGP form factor, which suits ultra-thin notebooks, but that is a power and packaging consideration, not a performance one.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The MX110 has an average benchmark score of 3834, while the GTX 750 Ti averages 2953. However, the MX110 is only tested in two compute benchmarks, whereas the GTX 750 Ti has eleven tests including DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, 2D, and compute workloads, so the averages are not directly comparable.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 750 Ti in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 750 Ti scores 10827 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 60.7% higher than the MX110's 4255. This is the smaller of the two deltas between the cards.

Q: What is the GTX 750 Ti's Vulkan advantage?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 750 Ti scores 10065 versus the MX110's 3413, a 66.1% lead. This is the largest margin recorded in the head-to-head data.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX and Vulkan versions?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 in their API support. The GTX 750 Ti also has additional DirectX benchmark scores (9, 10, 11, 12) that the MX110 lacks.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 750 Ti has 640 shading units, while the MX110 has 256. The GTX 750 Ti also has 40 texture mapping units versus 16, and 16 ROPs versus 8.

Q: What is the GTX 750 Ti's launch MSRP?

A: The GTX 750 Ti had a launch MSRP of 149 USD. The MX110 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and the GTX 750 Ti wins both by wide margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 750 Ti posts 10827 against the MX110's 4255, a delta of 60.7%. This test measures general compute performance, and the GTX 750 Ti's advantage stems from its larger execution resources: 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, versus 256, 16, and 8 for the MX110. The GTX 750 Ti also runs at a higher base clock (1020 MHz vs 978 MHz) and boost clock (1085 MHz vs 1006 MHz), and its memory bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s is more than double the MX110's 40.10 GB/s.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens. The GTX 750 Ti scores 10065, while the MX110 manages 3413, a 66.1% difference. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API that stresses throughput, and the GTX 750 Ti's 128-bit memory bus versus the MX110's 64-bit bus, combined with higher pixel rate (17.36 GPixel/s vs 8.048 GPixel/s) and texture rate (43.40 GTexel/s vs 16.10 GTexel/s), explains the decisive result. The GTX 750 Ti's FP32 compute of 1,388.8 GFLOPS is nearly 2.7 times the MX110's 515.1 GFLOPS.

The MX110's nearest rivals in the database include the GTX 650 (0.3% ahead), Intel UHD Graphics 710 (1.1% ahead), AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (1.2% behind), and Quadro 2000 (1.6% behind). These are all close scores, indicating the MX110 sits in a cluster of low-end GPUs. The GTX 750 Ti, by contrast, sits near the GTX 860M (0.5% behind), GeForce 820A (1% behind), Quadro P600 (1% ahead), and RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB (1.4% ahead). The RTX 4060 Ti comparison is notable: the GTX 750 Ti's average score is within 1.4% of a modern high-end card, though this is heavily influenced by the GTX 750 Ti's lower-scoring DirectX tests.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 750 Ti has a larger die (148 mm² vs 77 mm²) and more transistors (1,870 million vs 1,020 million), though the MX110 has a higher transistor density (13.2M per mm² vs 12.6M per mm²). Both use a 28 nm process from TSMC.

Memory configuration is a major split. The GTX 750 Ti has a 128-bit bus with 86.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX110 has a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the GTX 750 Ti runs memory at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the MX110.

Compute resources differ by roughly 2.5x in most categories. The GTX 750 Ti has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The MX110 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 17.36 GPixel/s versus 8.048 GPixel/s, texture rate is 43.40 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 1,388.8 GFLOPS versus 515.1 GFLOPS.

Power and physical design are also distinct. The GTX 750 Ti has a 60 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W, occupies a single slot, and measures 145 mm in length. The MX110 has a 30 W TDP, uses an IGP form factor, and requires no power connectors. Both have no power connectors, but the GTX 750 Ti is a desktop card with display outputs (2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a), while the MX110's outputs are portable-device dependent. The GTX 750 Ti uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface; the MX110 uses PCIe 3.0 x4.

The GTX 750 Ti was released on 2014-02-17, with the MX110 following on 2017-11-16. The GTX 750 Ti's predecessor is GeForce 600 and successor is GeForce 900; the MX110 has no recorded predecessor or successor.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, but they use different chips. The MX110 uses the GM108S die, while the GTX 750 Ti uses the GM107 die. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The GM107 in the GTX 750 Ti is a larger and more fully featured implementation: it has 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, whereas the GM108S is cut down to 256 shading units and 16 TMUs. The ROP count also differs, 16 versus 8.

The memory subsystem is a key architectural divergence. The GTX 750 Ti's 128-bit memory interface allows 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth, while the MX110's 64-bit interface halves that to 40.10 GB/s. For Maxwell, memory bandwidth is often the limiting factor for gaming and compute workloads, and the GTX 750 Ti's doubled bandwidth is a fundamental advantage.

Neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which is consistent with their Maxwell generation and end-of-life status. The GTX 750 Ti's bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16, which gives it more host bandwidth than the MX110's PCIe 3.0 x4 link. This matters for workloads that transfer data frequently between the CPU and GPU. The MX110's IGP form factor and 30 W TDP reflect its design for low-power laptops, whereas the GTX 750 Ti's single-slot desktop card with a 250 W suggested PSU is built for a more traditional desktop environment.

The API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 750 Ti has additional benchmark scores for DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, while the MX110 only has compute and Vulkan tests in the database.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti is the superior GPU in every direct benchmark comparison. It wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests by margins of 60.7% and 66.1%, respectively. Its compute resources are 2.5x higher in shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, and its memory bandwidth is more than double. The GTX 750 Ti's FP32 throughput of 1,388.8 GFLOPS dwarfs the MX110's 515.1 GFLOPS.

The MX110's only recorded advantage is its average benchmark score of 3834, which exceeds the GTX 750 Ti's 2953, but this is misleading because the MX110 has just two compute-heavy tests while the GTX 750 Ti's eleven tests include lower-scoring DirectX and 2D workloads. In the head-to-head data, the MX110 never wins.

For users who need compute performance, Vulkan gaming, or OpenCL acceleration, the GTX 750 Ti is the only rational choice. Its nearest rivals include the GTX 860M and Quadro P600, all within 1% of its average score, placing it in a competitive mid-range tier. The MX110, by contrast, sits alongside Intel UHD Graphics 710 and AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, with deltas under 1.6%, indicating entry-level integrated-class performance.

The GTX 750 Ti's higher TDP (60 W vs 30 W) and desktop form factor are the trade-offs. The MX110 is designed for low-power portable devices, and its IGP slot width, no power connectors, and portable-dependent display outputs reflect that. The GTX 750 Ti requires a 250 W PSU and occupies a single slot with DVI and mini-HDMI outputs. If raw performance is the criterion, the GTX 750 Ti wins decisively. The MX110 only makes sense in a system where its 30 W TDP and IGP packaging are absolute requirements, and even then, the performance gap is severe. The database shows no scenario where the MX110 outperforms the GTX 750 Ti.