NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two mobile GPUs. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M scores 10461, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 scores 4255. That represents a 59.3% deficit for the MX110, meaning the GTX 860M delivers more than double the raw compute throughput in this workload. The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story: the GTX 860M posts 9648 points versus 3413 for the MX110, a 64.6% gap. In both shared benchmarks, the GTX 860M wins outright, and the MX110 captures zero head-to-head victories.

The magnitude of these deltas is notable. A 59.3% difference in OpenCL and a 64.6% difference in Vulkan are not marginal edges; they suggest fundamentally different performance tiers. The MX110’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 3834, while the GTX 860M’s average is 2967. Interestingly, the MX110 actually holds a higher average score despite losing both head-to-head tests. This occurs because the GTX 860M’s average includes several low-scoring DirectX and 2D benchmarks, which drag its mean down. The MX110 only has two recorded benchmarks, both of which are compute-oriented and relatively strong for its class.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides additional context. The MX110 sits at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs, with its closest competitor being the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 at an average score of 3823, a 0.3% difference. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 trails by 1.1% at 3792, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is 1.2% ahead at 3883. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 leads by 1.6% at 3898. These are tight margins, indicating the MX110 is firmly in entry-level territory.

The GTX 860M, by contrast, ranks at the 19th percentile, slightly lower than the MX110 overall, but its nearest rivals reveal a different positioning. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti scores 2953, a 0.5% gap, while the NVIDIA GeForce 820A is 0.5% ahead at 2983. The NVIDIA Quadro P600 trails by 1.5% at 2923, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB is 1.9% behind at 2913. The inclusion of a modern RTX card in that list is curious, but the data shows the GTX 860M’s average is still competitive with those parts.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 860M wins every shared benchmark, so the use-case split is heavily skewed toward it. For compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL workloads, which often appear in video encoding, image processing, and general GPU-accelerated applications, the GTX 860M’s 10461 score dwarfs the MX110’s 4255. Similarly, Vulkan workloads, which are common in modern game engines and some productivity tools, favor the GTX 860M at 9648 versus 3413. If the application leverages either of these APIs, the GTX 860M is the clear choice.

The MX110, however, is not without merit in narrow scenarios. Its average benchmark score of 3834 is higher than the GTX 860M’s 2967, which suggests that in the specific tests where the MX110 was measured, it performs consistently. But those tests are limited to OpenCL and Vulkan, and in both, it loses to the GTX 860M. The MX110’s higher average is a statistical artifact of having fewer, more compute-focused benchmarks, not a sign of real-world superiority.

For legacy DirectX workloads, the GTX 860M has recorded data across multiple versions. Its PassMark scores are 15 for DirectX 10, 23 for DirectX 11, 13 for DirectX 12, and 55 for DirectX 9. These are low absolute numbers, but they exist, whereas the MX110 has no recorded DirectX benchmarks at all. If a user needs to run older DirectX 9 or DirectX 11 applications, the GTX 860M at least has measurable performance, while the MX110’s capabilities in those areas are undocumented in the database.

The GTX 860M also shows strength in 2D and compute tests. Its PassMark G2D score is 226, and its G3D score is 3081. The GPU compute score is 1251. These figures give the GTX 860M a broader profile across different workload types. The MX110, with only two benchmarks, cannot match that breadth. For users who need a known quantity across many scenarios, the GTX 860M is safer.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M is the superior GPU for any task that appears in the shared benchmark set. Its OpenCL score is 59.3% higher, and its Vulkan score is 64.6% higher than the MX110. There is no benchmark where the MX110 wins, so any compute or graphics workload that relies on these APIs will favor the GTX 860M. The GTX 860M also offers a wider range of measured performance data, including DirectX and 2D tests, giving users more confidence in its capabilities.

The MX110, however, is not without a niche. Its average benchmark score of 3834 is higher than the GTX 860M’s 2967, and its percentile ranking of 23 is above the GTX 860M’s 19. This suggests that, in the narrow set of tests where the MX110 was evaluated, it performs consistently and even outranks its rival in overall standing. But those tests are precisely the ones where the GTX 860M dominates, so the average score is misleading. The MX110’s higher percentile is due to the absence of low-scoring DirectX benchmarks in its record, not due to superior hardware.

For users who prioritize raw compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX 860M is the only logical choice. For users who need a GPU with verified performance across a broader range of legacy APIs, the GTX 860M again wins because it has data where the MX110 has none. The MX110 might appeal to someone who only cares about its two recorded benchmarks, but those benchmarks show it losing badly. The verdict is unambiguous: the GTX 860M is the stronger part, and the MX110 is an entry-level option that cannot compete in the tests where both were measured.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU scores higher in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M scores 10461, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 scores 4255, a 59.3% difference in favor of the GTX 860M.

Q: How do the two compare in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The GTX 860M scores 9648, and the MX110 scores 3413, giving the GTX 860M a 64.6% advantage.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The MX110 has an average score of 3834, which is higher than the GTX 860M’s 2967. This is because the GTX 860M has more benchmarks, including lower DirectX and 2D scores.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The MX110 ranks at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 860M ranks at the 19th percentile.

Q: Does the MX110 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No, the MX110 wins zero head-to-head benchmarks. The GTX 860M wins both recorded tests.

Q: Which GPU has more recorded benchmark data?

A: The GTX 860M has ten recorded benchmarks, including OpenCL, Vulkan, Metal, and multiple PassMark tests. The MX110 has only two, OpenCL and Vulkan.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations and architectures. The MX110 uses the GM108S chip, built on the Maxwell architecture, while the GTX 860M uses the GK104 chip, based on the older Kepler architecture. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the transistor counts differ dramatically. The MX110 has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm². The GTX 860M packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0 million per mm². The GTX 860M’s die is nearly four times larger, which explains its much higher compute resources.

The MX110 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The GTX 860M has 1152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. That is 4.5 times more shading units and 6 times more TMUs, which directly translates into higher pixel and texture rates. The MX110’s pixel rate is 8.048 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 16.10 GTexel/s. The GTX 860M’s pixel rate is 21.96 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 87.84 GTexel/s. The GTX 860M also delivers 2.108 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 515.1 GFLOPS for the MX110.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The MX110 runs at a base clock of 978 MHz and a boost of 1006 MHz, while the GTX 860M runs at 797 MHz base and 915 MHz boost. The MX110’s higher clocks do not compensate for its far fewer cores. Memory speeds are nearly identical at 1253 MHz for the MX110 and 1250 MHz for the GTX 860M, both translating to 5 Gbps effective. However, the memory bus width differs: the MX110 has a 64-bit bus, while the GTX 860M has a 128-bit bus. This gives the GTX 860M a bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s for the MX110.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 860M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The MX110’s bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x4, while the GTX 860M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which affects data transfer rates with the host system.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is in memory bandwidth. The GTX 860M offers 80.00 GB/s, exactly double the MX110’s 40.10 GB/s, due to the wider 128-bit bus versus 64-bit. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Compute capacity is vastly different. The GTX 860M’s FP32 throughput of 2.108 TFLOPS is roughly four times the MX110’s 515.1 GFLOPS. Pixel rate is 21.96 GPixel/s for the GTX 860M versus 8.048 GPixel/s for the MX110, and texture rate is 87.84 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s.

Power consumption is another key differentiator. The MX110 has a TDP of 30 W, while the GTX 860M has a TDP of 75 W. The GTX 860M uses more power, which is expected given its larger die and higher performance. Both are integrated into portable devices and require no power connectors.

The transistor count and die size also differ substantially. The MX110 has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the GTX 860M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The GTX 860M’s transistor density is actually slightly lower at 12.0M per mm² versus 13.2M per mm² for the MX110.

The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX110 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 860M. Release dates also diverge, with the MX110 launching in November 2017 and the GTX 860M in March 2014. Both are end-of-life products. The GTX 860M has a predecessor in the GeForce 700M series and a successor in the GeForce 900M series, while the MX110 has no listed predecessor or successor.