NVIDIA GeForce MX110 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

The benchmark data presents a clear, if narrow, picture: the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 holds a single head-to-head win over the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D in the only recorded test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark. The Quadro 2000D is a professional workstation card from 2011, built on the Fermi architecture, while the MX110 is a mobile-oriented chip from 2017 based on Maxwell. Their shared 23rd percentile ranking among all GPUs suggests they occupy a similar performance tier, but the underlying architectural and specification differences tell a more complex story than the raw scores alone might suggest.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 scores 4255 against the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D's 3930. This represents a 7.6% advantage for the MX110, a notable margin given how close their overall performance percentiles are. The data indicates the MX110 is the decisive winner here, leading in the only head-to-head contest recorded.

Breaking down the implications of this score, the MX110's OpenCL result is not just a marginal victory; it is a consistent one. The deltaPct of -7.6% (from the Quadro's perspective) shows the Quadro is trailing by a significant amount in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. For a professional card like the Quadro 2000D, which might be expected to excel in compute tasks, this is a surprising result. The MX110, despite its mobile and consumer-oriented design, demonstrates higher raw compute throughput in this specific test.

Looking at the broader benchmark context from the `nearestRivals` data, the Quadro 2000D's average score of 3930 places it in close competition with the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919, just 0.3% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.6% ahead). This shows the Quadro 2000D sits in a tight cluster of performance. In contrast, the MX110's average score of 3834 is actually lower than its head-to-head OpenCL score, and it sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (3823, 0.3% behind) and the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792, 1.1% behind). This indicates that while the MX110 wins the specific OpenCL test against the Quadro, its overall average performance across benchmarks is slightly lower, suggesting the Quadro might be more consistent in other workloads not covered here.

The single benchmark win for the MX110 is a critical data point, but it is a narrow dataset. The lack of other head-to-head tests, such as gaming or professional application benchmarks, leaves a significant gap in the analysis. The data shows the MX110 is faster in OpenCL, but the Quadro's 0-wins record is a function of the test selection, not necessarily a definitive statement of overall superiority.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial, reflecting their different eras and design goals. The Quadro 2000D is built on the Fermi architecture using a 40 nm process at TSMC, with a large die size of 238 mm² and 1,170 million transistors. This results in a transistor density of 4.9M per mm². In contrast, the MX110 is based on the Maxwell architecture and uses a much smaller 77 mm² die on a 28 nm process, packing 1,020 million transistors for a density of 13.2M per mm². This shows a clear generational leap in manufacturing efficiency; the MX110 fits nearly as many transistors into one-third the silicon area.

The core configurations also differ significantly. The Quadro 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The MX110, despite having a smaller die, houses 256 shading units but only 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs. This suggests the MX110 is tuned for compute-heavy shader work, while the Quadro has a more balanced configuration with more texture and pixel processing hardware. The memory subsystems are similarly distinct. The Quadro features a 128-bit memory bus with 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory, delivering a bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s. The MX110, on the other hand, uses a narrower 64-bit bus but doubles the capacity to 2 GB, achieving a slightly lower bandwidth of 40.10 GB/s. This trade-off between bandwidth and capacity is a key differentiator; the Quadro prioritizes throughput, while the MX110 offers more memory for larger datasets.

Clock speeds further separate the two. The Quadro 2000D's memory is rated at 650 MHz, translating to 2.6 Gbps effective, while the MX110's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The MX110 also has explicit base and boost clocks of 978 MHz and 1006 MHz, respectively, whereas the Quadro's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. The compute rates reflect these differences: the Quadro achieves 480.0 GFLOPS FP32 and a pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s, while the MX110 posts 515.1 GFLOPS FP32 and a higher pixel rate of 8.048 GPixel/s. The MX110's higher shading unit count and clock speeds give it an edge in raw FP32 compute, but the Quadro's larger TMU and ROP counts result in a higher texture rate (20.00 GTexel/s vs 16.10 GTexel/s). This suggests the Quadro might be better suited for tasks that are fill-rate limited, while the MX110 excels in shader-bound workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the available benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 4255 compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D's 3930, a 7.6% difference.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

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

Q: What are the architectural generations of these two cards?

A: The Quadro 2000D is based on the Fermi architecture with a GF106 chip, while the MX110 uses the Maxwell architecture with a GM108S chip.

Q: Do they support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The MX110 also lists Vulkan 1.4 support, while the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W, while the MX110 has a much lower TDP of 30 W.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The MX110 has a significantly higher transistor density of 13.2M per mm², compared to the Quadro 2000D's 4.9M per mm².

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specifications where the two GPUs differ, based solely on the data provided.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 2000D | NVIDIA GeForce MX110 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Fermi | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

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

| Die Size | 238 mm² | 77 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | Not listed | 978 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1006 MHz |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Clock | 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps) |

| Shading Units | 192 | 256 |

| TMUs | 32 | 16 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.000 GPixel/s | 8.048 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.00 GTexel/s | 16.10 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 480.0 GFLOPS | 515.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 62 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

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

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2011-10-04 | 2017-11-16 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not listed |

Where Each One Wins

The data points to a clear split in strengths. The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 wins in the only direct benchmark test, showing a 7.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. Its architectural advantages include a higher FP32 compute rate (515.1 GFLOPS vs 480.0 GFLOPS), a higher pixel rate (8.048 GPixel/s vs 5.000 GPixel/s), and double the memory capacity (2 GB vs 1024 MB). It also consumes half the power (30 W vs 62 W) and is built on a more efficient 28 nm process. These factors suggest the MX110 is the better choice for compute-heavy tasks and applications that benefit from more memory, all while being more power-efficient.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D counters with a wider 128-bit memory bus and higher memory bandwidth (41.60 GB/s vs 40.10 GB/s), though the difference is minimal. It also has more TMUs (32 vs 16) and ROPs (16 vs 8), which contribute to its higher texture rate of 20.00 GTexel/s compared to the MX110's 16.10 GTexel/s. This configuration suggests the Quadro might maintain an edge in texture-heavy or fill-rate-bound scenarios, even if the raw compute numbers are lower. Its larger die and older Fermi architecture also imply a different design philosophy focused on workstation stability rather than raw speed.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is the performance winner, taking the sole head-to-head test decisively. Its superior FP32 compute, higher pixel rate, and greater memory capacity make it a more capable choice for general compute workloads. The lower TDP also makes it a far more efficient option, which is a significant advantage in mobile or compact systems. For any user prioritizing raw OpenCL performance, the MX110 is the clear pick.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D is not without its merits. Its higher texture rate and wider memory bus could make it preferable for specific professional applications that are heavily dependent on texturing or memory throughput, even if the overall compute is slower. The Quadro's single-slot design and dedicated display outputs (2x DVI) also make it a more conventional desktop workstation component. The choice ultimately hinges on the workload: the data shows the MX110 is the faster card in compute, but the Quadro's specialized configuration may still hold value for fill-rate-bound tasks. The absence of more diverse benchmarks means the Quadro's potential in these areas cannot be quantified, but the available evidence points to the MX110 as the superior all-around performer.