NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, and the results are strikingly one-sided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 970M scores 18,946 against the MX110's 4,255, a delta of 77.5% in favor of the larger chip. That is not a marginal gap; the GTX 970M delivers more than four times the raw compute throughput in this workload. The Vulkan result tells a similar story: the GTX 970M posts 18,292 versus 3,413 for the MX110, a delta of 81.3%. The MX110 trails by more than a factor of five in this API-level test.

The MX110's only recorded wins are absent. It wins zero head-to-head comparisons, while the GTX 970M wins both. The average benchmark score reinforces the hierarchy: the MX110 averages 3,834 across all tests, while the GTX 970M averages 4,628. That 20.7% overall difference is modest compared to the massive deltas in the individual OpenCL and Vulkan runs, which suggests the MX110's aggregate score is pulled up by lighter workloads, while the GTX 970M excels in compute-heavy scenarios.

For context, the MX110's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (average 3,823, delta 0.3%), Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3,792, delta 1.1%), and AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3,883, delta -1.2%). The MX110 sits essentially at parity with these entries, within a couple of percentage points either way. The GTX 970M, meanwhile, is bracketed by the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4,621, delta 0.2%) and AMD Radeon R5 M320 (4,657, delta -0.6%), meaning it also anchors a cluster of mid-range parts. But the head-to-head data shows that cluster is far above the MX110's cluster.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M wins decisively with a score of 18,946, while the MX110 scores 4,255, a delta of 77.5% in favor of the GTX 970M.

Q: How does the MX110 compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The MX110's average score is 3,834, which is 0.3% ahead of the GeForce GTX 650 (3,823), 1.1% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3,792), and 1.2% behind the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3,883). It also trails the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3,898) by 1.6%.

Q: What is the GTX 970M's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 970M sits in the 27th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the MX110 sits in the 23rd percentile. The difference is small, but the GTX 970M's average score (4,628) is higher.

Q: Does the MX110 have any benchmark where it beats the GTX 970M?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head benchmarks show the MX110 winning zero tests. The GTX 970M wins both the OpenCL and Vulkan comparisons.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The GTX 970M offers 120.3 GB/s of bandwidth from a 192-bit bus, while the MX110 provides 40.10 GB/s from a 64-bit bus. The GTX 970M's bandwidth is three times higher.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The GTX 970M uses 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the MX110 uses 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The GTX 970M has over five times the transistor count.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share a Maxwell foundation but diverge sharply in scale and revision. The MX110 uses the GM108S chip, built on the original Maxwell architecture, while the GTX 970M uses the GM204 chip, which is Maxwell 2.0. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, and their transistor densities are nearly identical: 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter for the MX110 and 13.1 million for the GTX 970M. The process node is the same, so the difference in capability comes from die size and transistor budget, not manufacturing technology.

The MX110 packs 1,020 million transistors into 77 mm², while the GTX 970M scales to 5,200 million transistors across 398 mm². That is a 5.1x increase in transistor count and a 5.2x increase in die area. The GTX 970M's shading unit count is 1,280 versus 256 for the MX110, a 5x jump. Texture mapping units scale similarly: 80 for the GTX 970M versus 16 for the MX110. Render output units go from 8 on the MX110 to 48 on the GTX 970M, a 6x difference.

The memory subsystem differs as well. The MX110 uses a 64-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 970M uses a 192-bit bus with 6 GB of GDDR5. Both run memory at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective, but the wider bus gives the GTX 970M a bandwidth of 120.3 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s. The pixel rate tells the same story: 49.82 GPixel/s for the GTX 970M versus 8.048 GPixel/s for the MX110. Texture rate is 83.04 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute is 2.657 TFLOPS versus 515.1 GFLOPS.

API support shows a subtle difference. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the DirectX version differs: the MX110 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The higher feature level on the GTX 970M indicates support for additional DirectX 12 features that the MX110 lacks. The production status for both is end-of-life, and both are portable-device dependent for display outputs.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two are extensive. The MX110 has a base clock of 978 MHz and a boost clock of 1006 MHz, while the GTX 970M runs at 924 MHz base and 1038 MHz boost. The GTX 970M has a slightly lower base clock but a higher boost clock. Memory capacity differs: 2 GB for the MX110 versus 6 GB for the GTX 970M. The bus width is 64-bit versus 192-bit, and bandwidth is 40.10 GB/s versus 120.3 GB/s.

Shading units differ by a factor of five: 256 for the MX110, 1,280 for the GTX 970M. Texture mapping units are 16 versus 80, and render output units are 8 versus 48. The transistor count is 1,020 million versus 5,200 million, and die size is 77 mm² versus 398 mm². The TDP is 30 W for the MX110, while the GTX 970M has no recorded TDP in the database. The MX110 uses an IGP slot width with no power connectors, while the GTX 970M uses an MXM Module slot width, also with no power connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX110 and MXM-B (3.0) for the GTX 970M.

The release dates differ: the MX110 launched in November 2017, while the GTX 970M launched in October 2014. The GTX 970M has a predecessor (GeForce 800M) and a successor (GeForce 10 Mobile), while the MX110 has neither recorded. The GTX 970M also has a richer benchmark suite, including 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Passmark DirectX 9/10/11/12, Passmark G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute tests, while the MX110 only has Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the GTX 970M is the far more capable GPU. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 77.5% and 81.3%, and it has a higher average benchmark score (4,628 versus 3,834). The GTX 970M also sits in a higher percentile (27th versus 23rd), and its nearest rivals are mid-range parts like the Quadro M3000M, whereas the MX110 competes with integrated-class graphics like the Intel UHD Graphics 710. If the choice is between these two, the GTX 970M is the clear pick for any workload that stresses compute or graphics throughput.

However, the MX110 is not without a niche. Its 30 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for thin-and-light portable devices, while the GTX 970M's MXM Module format implies a larger, more power-hungry chassis. The MX110 also has a newer release date, which may matter for platform compatibility in certain systems. But from a pure performance standpoint, there is no contest.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970M wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, and it also wins on every compute-related specification. Its FP32 throughput of 2.657 TFLOPS dwarfs the MX110's 515.1 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 83.04 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 49.82 GPixel/s are multiples of the MX110's 16.10 GTexel/s and 8.048 GPixel/s. For gaming, 3D rendering, or any GPU-accelerated compute task, the GTX 970M is the superior choice. Its 6 GB of memory and 192-bit bus also provide far more headroom for large textures or datasets.

The MX110, by contrast, wins on power efficiency and form factor. Its 30 W TDP is the only recorded TDP in the comparison, and its IGP slot width indicates it is designed for soldered, low-power integration. It also has a higher base clock (978 MHz versus 924 MHz), though this is irrelevant given the GTX 970M's massive core count advantage. The MX110's nearest rivals include integrated and entry-level discrete GPUs, which suggests its intended use is basic display output and light acceleration, not demanding workloads.

In terms of use cases, the GTX 970M is for users who need real performance in a laptop or mobile workstation. The MX110 is for users who need a GPU that exists mainly to drive a display and handle occasional light tasks. The benchmark data shows no scenario where the MX110 outperforms the GTX 970M, so the decision comes down to system requirements and power constraints, not performance.