NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 are both end-of-life graphics processors from NVIDIA, but they represent vastly different eras of mobile and desktop computing. The MX110 is a Maxwell-based mobile chip from 2017, while the GT 545 is a Fermi 2.0 desktop card from 2011. Benchmark data shows a clear performance gap, but the architectural story is more nuanced than a simple generational leap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results decisively favor the newer MX110. The MX110 scores 4,255 points, while the GT 545 manages 3,594 points. This translates to an 18.4% advantage for the MX110, a significant margin that underscores the efficiency gains of Maxwell over the older Fermi architecture. In this single head-to-head test, the MX110 takes the win, and the data records zero wins for the GT 545.

Contextualizing these scores against their respective peer groups reveals how each card sits in its own performance tier. The MX110’s average benchmark score of 3,834 places it in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the GTX 650 (3,823) is a mere 0.3% behind, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3,792) trails by 1.1%, and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3,883) is 1.2% ahead. This indicates the MX110 performs right at the entry-level sweet spot for its generation, trading blows with other low-end parts.

The GT 545, with an average score of 3,594, sits in the 21st percentile of all GPUs, just two points lower than the MX110 in overall standing. Its nearest rivals are a more eclectic mix, including the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3,596) at a 0.1% deficit, the GeForce GT 735M (3,616) at 0.6% behind, and the GeForce GTX 1050 (3,629) at 1% behind. Interestingly, the GT 545’s OpenCL score is only slightly lower than the MX110’s average, suggesting that while the older card lacks the peak performance of the newer chip, it is not entirely outclassed when compared across a broader spectrum of workloads.

The 18.4% delta in the direct head-to-head is the single most telling statistic. It shows that despite the GT 545 having a wider memory bus and more ROPs, the MX110’s architectural efficiency and faster memory clock deliver a substantial performance win. This is not a close contest; it is a clear victory for the newer part.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The MX110 uses the GM108S chip based on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,020 million transistors on a die size of 77 mm², yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². In contrast, the GT 545 uses the GF116 chip based on Fermi 2.0, also from TSMC but on a much older 40 nm node. This chip packs 1,170 million transistors into a significantly larger 238 mm² die, resulting in a much lower density of just 4.9M per mm². The MX110’s smaller, denser die is a direct result of the newer manufacturing process.

Core configuration differs markedly. The MX110 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The GT 545 counters with fewer shading units at 144 but more TMUs at 24 and double the ROPs at 16. This divergent configuration suggests the GT 545 was designed for higher fill-rate tasks, while the MX110 relies on more parallel shader cores. The pixel rate reflects this: the MX110 achieves 8.048 GPixel/s, while the GT 545 only manages 4.320 GPixel/s. However, the GT 545’s texture rate of 17.28 GTexel/s slightly edges out the MX110’s 16.10 GTexel/s.

Memory subsystems are also polar opposites. The MX110 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) yielding 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 545 uses 1536 MB of DDR3 on a 192-bit bus, with a slower 800 MHz clock (1600 Mbps effective) producing 38.40 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite the GT 545’s wider bus, the MX110’s faster GDDR5 memory gives it a slight bandwidth advantage.

Compute throughput favors the MX110, which delivers 515.1 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 414.7 GFLOPS for the GT 545. Power consumption tells the story of efficiency: the MX110 has a TDP of just 30 W and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors, while the GT 545 is a single-slot card with a 70 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MX110 also supports PCIe 3.0 x4, while the GT 545 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is faster, scoring 4,255 points versus 3,594 points for the GT 545, a difference of 18.4%.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The MX110 has an average benchmark score of 3,834, while the GT 545 averages 3,594. The MX110 sits in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, and the GT 545 sits in the 21st percentile.

Q: What are the key differences in memory configuration?

A: The MX110 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, while the GT 545 has 1536 MB of DDR3 on a 192-bit bus with 38.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The MX110 has a much higher transistor density at 13.2M per mm², compared to the GT 545’s 4.9M per mm².

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each card?

A: The MX110 has a TDP of 30 W and requires no power connectors, whereas the GT 545 has a TDP of 70 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0). The MX110 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 545’s Vulkan support is not listed.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX110 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

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

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 238 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 978 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1006 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1536 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 40.10 GB/s | 38.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 144 |

| TMUs | 16 | 24 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.048 GPixel/s | 4.320 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 16.10 GTexel/s | 17.28 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 515.1 GFLOPS | 414.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | 70 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, 1x VGA |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2017-11-16 | 2011-05-13 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 149 USD |

| Predecessor | Not specified | GeForce 400 |

| Successor | Not specified | GeForce 600 |

| Length | Not specified | 145 mm (5.7 inches) |

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward recommendation for most users: the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is the better performer. In the direct OpenCL comparison, it beats the GT 545 by 18.4%, and its average benchmark score is 6.7% higher. It achieves this with less than half the TDP (30 W vs 70 W), making it vastly more power-efficient. Its smaller die, higher transistor density, and faster GDDR5 memory all contribute to a modern, efficient design that outclasses the older Fermi part.

However, the GT 545 is not without its strengths. It has a wider 192-bit memory bus, double the ROPs (16 vs 8), and a higher texture fill rate (17.28 GTexel/s vs 16.10 GTexel/s). For legacy applications that heavily rely on fill-rate performance or specific older driver paths, the GT 545 might hold its own in certain niche scenarios, but the benchmark data does not support this in the OpenCL test. Its 70 W TDP and need for a 250 W PSU make it a more demanding component in a desktop build.

Given the MX110’s higher percentile ranking (23rd vs 21st), superior compute throughput, and overwhelming victory in the head-to-head test, it is the clear choice for anyone seeking better raw performance and efficiency. The GT 545’s only advantage lies in its historical context as a predecessor in the GeForce 500 series, but for modern workloads, the MX110’s architectural advantages are decisive. The verdict is unambiguous: pick the MX110 for its performance, efficiency, and newer feature set. The GT 545 should be considered only for legacy system compatibility, not for performance.