NVIDIA GeForce MX110 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 are both end-of-life GPUs, but they represent vastly different design philosophies and eras. The Quadro 2000 is a professional workstation card from 2010, built on the Fermi architecture, while the MX110 is a mobile laptop chip from 2017 based on Maxwell. The data shows a clear, albeit modest, performance advantage for the newer MX110, yet the Quadro 2000 retains a unique set of professional features that may still hold value in specific legacy contexts. This analysis will break down the specifics, benchmark results, and architectural implications to determine which GPU is the better choice based strictly on the available facts.

The Verdict

Based on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is the outright performance winner. In the sole head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the MX110 scores 4255, which is 8.4% higher than the Quadro 2000's score of 3898. This is a decisive, if not overwhelming, victory for the Maxwell-based chip. The MX110 also demonstrates versatility with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3413, a capability entirely absent from the Quadro 2000's profile. For any user prioritizing raw compute performance or modern API support, the MX110 is the logical choice.

However, the Quadro 2000 is not without its merits. It offers a significantly higher memory bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s compared to the MX110's 40.10 GB/s, and it features a 128-bit memory bus versus the MX110's narrower 64-bit bus. While this does not translate into a performance win in the OpenCL test, it suggests the Quadro 2000 may have strengths in memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads that the single benchmark does not capture. The Quadro 2000 also has a wider 178 mm board and a single-slot form factor with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs, making it a potentially better fit for a fixed desktop workstation environment that requires multiple external displays. The MX110, being an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor) with "Portable Device Dependent" outputs, is designed for laptops and offers no such flexibility.

The choice ultimately depends on the use case. If the requirement is for a modern, low-power, and faster compute device for a laptop, the MX110 is the clear winner. If the requirement is for a legacy, single-slot desktop workstation card with dedicated display outputs and a wider memory bus, the Quadro 2000, despite its age and lower performance, might still serve a niche purpose. The data does not support the Quadro 2000 for any performance-critical modern task, but its professional lineage and interface options provide a distinct, if limited, value proposition.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the available benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 4255, which is 8.4% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 2000's score of 3898.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000 support modern graphics APIs like Vulkan?

A: No. The data shows the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support in its API list. In contrast, the MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4 and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3413.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two?

A: The Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX110 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MX110 has a significantly lower TDP of 30 W and does not list a suggested PSU.

Q: Are these GPUs comparable to any other products on the market?

A: The data shows both are near the 23rd percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro 2000's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, with a score of 3883, a 0.4% difference. The MX110's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650, with a score of 3823, a 0.3% difference.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The MX110 has a much higher transistor density at 13.2M / mm², compared to the Quadro 2000's 4.9M / mm². This is due to the MX110's smaller 77 mm² die size on a 28 nm process, versus the Quadro 2000's larger 238 mm² die on a 40 nm process.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, spanning seven years of development. The Quadro 2000 is built on the Fermi architecture, utilizing the GF106 chip manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This is an older, power-hungry design. In contrast, the MX110 uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, also from TSMC but on a more advanced 28 nm process. This generational leap is immediately visible in the transistor density: the Quadro 2000 packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die (4.9M / mm²), while the MX110 fits 1,020 million transistors into a much smaller 77 mm² die (13.2M / mm²). This indicates a far more efficient and compact design for the newer chip.

The compute core configurations also differ significantly. The Quadro 2000 features 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The MX110, despite having fewer TMUs (16) and ROPs (8), boasts 256 shading units. This higher shader count is a key reason for its superior OpenCL performance. The pixel and texture rates reflect this difference: the MX110 achieves 8.048 GPixel/s and 16.10 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 2000 manages 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s. The Quadro 2000 wins on texture rate due to its higher TMU count, but loses on pixel rate.

Memory architecture is another point of divergence. The Quadro 2000 uses a 128-bit memory bus, while the MX110 uses a 64-bit bus. However, the MX110 compensates with a much higher effective memory clock of 5 Gbps, compared to the Quadro 2000's 2.6 Gbps. This results in nearly identical bandwidth (41.60 GB/s vs 40.10 GB/s). The MX110 also supports a newer PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the Quadro 2000 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification, reflecting their different target markets and release eras. The most obvious difference is in memory capacity: the Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB, while the MX110 has double that at 2 GB. The MX110 also has official base and boost clocks of 978 MHz and 1006 MHz, respectively, while the Quadro 2000 lists no base or boost clock data. The memory clock is a major differentiator, with the MX110 running at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro 2000's 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective).

The physical and power profiles are starkly different. The Quadro 2000 is a 62 W, single-slot desktop card measuring 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height, requiring a 250 W PSU. The MX110 is an IGP with a TDP of just 30 W and no listed dimensions or PSU requirement, designed for portable devices. The Quadro 2000 has dedicated display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort), while the MX110's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent." The bus interface also differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro 2000 and PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX110.

In terms of features, the MX110 is more modern, supporting Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000 lacks Vulkan entirely. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, according to the data. The Quadro 2000 also has a known launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the MX110 has no listed launch price. Finally, the Quadro 2000 has a defined predecessor (Quadro FX Tesla) and successor (Quadro Kepler), while the MX110 has neither, marking it as a standalone product in its lineup.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which provides a clear, singular data point. The results show the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 winning with a score of 4255, against the NVIDIA Quadro 2000's 3898. The delta is -8.4% from the perspective of the Quadro 2000, meaning it trails by 8.4%. This is a significant margin within GPU benchmarks, indicating a solid performance advantage for the newer chip in general-purpose compute workloads.

This result is corroborated by the broader benchmark context. The MX110's average benchmark score is 3834, while the Quadro 2000's is 3898. Interestingly, the Quadro 2000's average score is higher than the MX110's average, despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test. This discrepancy is explained by the MX110's second benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 3413. This lower Vulkan score pulls down its average. This suggests that while the MX110 is faster in OpenCL, its Vulkan performance is comparatively weaker. The Quadro 2000, having no Vulkan results, maintains a higher average score based on its single OpenCL data point.

The data also places both cards in a similar competitive tier. The Quadro 2000's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, +0.4%) and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930, -0.8%). The MX110's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (3823, +0.3%) and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, -1.2%). Both cards are clustered around the 3800-3900 score range, indicating they are direct competitors in performance, despite the MX110 having a clear edge in the specific OpenCL test.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 wins decisively in raw computational performance. Its 8.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the most important metric, indicating better execution of general-purpose tasks and compute shaders. It also wins on modern feature support, being the only one of the two with Vulkan capabilities, scoring 3413 in that test. The MX110 is also significantly more power-efficient, with a 30 W TDP versus the Quadro 2000's 62 W, making it the only viable choice for a laptop or any power-constrained environment. Its double memory capacity (2 GB vs 1024 MB) also gives it an advantage in workloads that require larger datasets.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000, despite its age, has a few specific areas where the data suggests it could be preferable. It has a higher memory bandwidth (41.60 GB/s) and a wider 128-bit memory bus, which could theoretically provide an advantage in bandwidth-sensitive tasks that the OpenCL test does not fully capture. It also has a higher texture rate (20.00 GTexel/s vs 16.10 GTexel/s), which could benefit certain legacy texturing workloads. From a physical standpoint, the Quadro 2000 is a single-slot card with dedicated DVI and DisplayPort outputs, making it a more versatile option for a desktop workstation that relies on multiple external monitors. Its professional Quadro lineage, indicated by its 599 USD launch MSRP, suggests it may have had optimized drivers for professional applications, though this is not quantified in the benchmark data.

In summary, the MX110 is the clear winner for anyone needing faster compute, modern API support, or low power consumption. The Quadro 2000's wins are more niche, revolving around its memory bus width, higher texture rate, and professional form factor with dedicated display outputs. For a modern user, the MX110's advantages are far more relevant, while the Quadro 2000 is a relic that might only appeal to someone maintaining a specific legacy workstation setup.