NVIDIA GeForce MX110 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between these two mobile GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it delivers a decisive result. The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 scores 4,255 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M manages 3,434 points. That works out to a 23.9% advantage for the MX110, a substantial gap that places the two parts in different performance tiers despite both being end-of-life mobile offerings.

Context from the nearest-rivals data reinforces this picture. The MX110's average benchmark score across all tests is 3,834, putting it within 0.3% of the GeForce GTX 650 (3,823) and 1.1% above the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3,792). It also edges out the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics by 1.2% (3,883 for the AMD part) and the Quadro 2000 by 1.6% (3,898). These are tight margins, but the MX110 clearly sits in a peer group where every percentage point counts.

The Quadro 2000M, by contrast, has an average score of 3,434, which lands it 0.1% ahead of the GeForce GT 740 (3,431) and 1.3% above the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3,389). It trails the GeForce 920MX by 2.7% (3,528) and leads the Intel HD Graphics 530 by 3.1% (3,332). The percentile rankings tell the same story: the MX110 sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000M rests at the 21st percentile. Neither part is a performance champion, but the MX110 holds a consistent, measurable edge across every comparable metric.

In terms of raw benchmark wins, the head-to-head table shows one victory for the MX110 and zero for the Quadro 2000M. That single OpenCL result is the only direct comparison available, but it is also the most relevant one for compute-oriented workloads. The 23.9% delta is not a marginal difference; it represents a full generation of architectural progress, which becomes clearer when examining the underlying hardware.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, and it explains the benchmark results better than any single specification. The MX110 is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM108S chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 2000M uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, also from TSMC but on a 40 nm process. That process node difference alone — 28 nm versus 40 nm — accounts for significant efficiency and density improvements in the newer part.

Transistor counts tell a surprising story. The Quadro 2000M actually packs more transistors at 1,170 million, compared to the MX110's 1,020 million. However, the die sizes are wildly different: the Quadro 2000M uses a 238 mm² die, while the MX110 fits its transistors into just 77 mm². This yields a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter for the MX110 versus only 4.9 million per square millimeter for the Quadro 2000M. The MX110 is nearly three times denser, a direct consequence of the newer manufacturing process.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. Both cards ship with 2 GB of VRAM, but the MX110 uses GDDR5 memory running at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on a 64-bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000M uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective) on a wider 128-bit bus, but that width cannot compensate for the slower memory type, yielding just 28.80 GB/s. The MX110 offers roughly 39% more memory bandwidth despite having half the bus width.

Compute resources are similarly lopsided in raw count but not in the way one might expect. The MX110 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The Quadro 2000M has fewer shading units at 192, but more TMUs at 32 and more ROPs at 16. Despite the Quadro's higher TMU and ROP counts, the MX110 achieves better pixel and texture rates: 8.048 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s, and 16.10 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s. The MX110 wins pixel throughput decisively, while the Quadro holds a modest texture rate edge.

Floating-point performance follows the same pattern. The MX110 delivers 515.1 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Quadro 2000M manages 422.4 GFLOPS. That is a 21.9% advantage for the MX110, closely mirroring the OpenCL benchmark delta. Power consumption tells a different efficiency story: the MX110 is rated at 30 W TDP, while the Quadro 2000M draws 55 W. The MX110 delivers more performance while using nearly half the power, a hallmark of the Maxwell architecture's efficiency gains over Fermi.

The MX110 also supports newer API features, including Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan support listed. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The MX110 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface and comes as an integrated graphics processor (IGP), while the Quadro 2000M uses an MXM-A (3.0) module form factor. Both have portable-device-dependent display outputs and no power connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The MX110 wins in nearly every measurable category, but the specific use cases make the differences concrete. For compute-heavy workloads that rely on OpenCL — such as video encoding, physics simulations, or GPU-accelerated rendering — the MX110's 23.9% OpenCL advantage over the Quadro 2000M is decisive. Its higher FP32 throughput of 515.1 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS reinforces this strength, making it the better choice for any task that stresses raw shader compute.

Memory bandwidth is another clear win for the MX110. Its 40.10 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth versus the Quadro 2000M's 28.80 GB/s of DDR3 means texture-heavy workloads, large framebuffers, and data-intensive shaders will all run noticeably smoother on the MX110. The pixel rate advantage — 8.048 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s — also favors the MX110 for fill-rate-bound scenarios like high-resolution compositing or multi-display output.

The Quadro 2000M does hold two narrow leads, though they are unlikely to matter in practice. Its texture rate of 17.60 GTexel/s slightly exceeds the MX110's 16.10 GTexel/s, a 9.3% edge that could marginally benefit certain texture-filtering workloads. It also has double the ROP count (16 versus 8), which in theory helps with certain rasterization tasks, but its lower pixel rate negates that advantage in real-world throughput.

The Quadro 2000M's wider 128-bit memory bus versus the MX110's 64-bit bus is a theoretical advantage for memory-heavy workloads, but the slower DDR3 memory erases it entirely. Similarly, the Quadro's larger die size and higher transistor count do not translate into performance gains; they simply reflect the older, less efficient 40 nm process.

For power-constrained environments, the MX110 is the clear winner. Its 30 W TDP versus the Quadro 2000M's 55 W means it generates less heat and places less strain on mobile cooling solutions. In thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is scarce, the MX110's efficiency is a practical advantage that goes beyond raw benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M in essentially every benchmark and specification that matters. The 23.9% OpenCL lead, the 515.1 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS compute advantage, the 40.10 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s bandwidth superiority, and the 30 W versus 55 W power efficiency gap all point in the same direction. The MX110 is the newer, faster, and more efficient part.

Buyers or system integrators choosing between these two should pick the MX110 without hesitation, provided the application supports its feature set. The Quadro 2000M's only theoretical advantages — higher TMU and ROP counts and a wider memory bus — do not translate into real-world wins. Its slightly higher texture rate of 17.60 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s is the sole metric where it leads, and that margin is too small to matter for most workloads.

The MX110's 23rd percentile ranking versus the Quadro 2000M's 21st percentile confirms that both parts sit near the bottom of the GPU performance spectrum. Neither will handle modern gaming or demanding creative workloads with ease. But within their shared tier, the MX110 is the stronger option for compute tasks, memory-intensive operations, and efficiency-conscious mobile designs.

The Quadro 2000M may retain niche appeal for legacy software certification or specific ISV applications that require Fermi-era compatibility, but the benchmark data does not support its selection on performance grounds. It is an older, slower, and hungrier part that has been decisively superseded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 scores 4,255, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3,434. The MX110 leads by 23.9%.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The MX110 offers 40.10 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. The Quadro 2000M provides 28.80 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a lower power consumption rating?

A: The MX110 is rated at 30 W TDP, while the Quadro 2000M is rated at 55 W TDP. The MX110 uses 25 W less power.

Q: What are the FP32 compute capabilities of each GPU?

A: The MX110 delivers 515.1 GFLOPS of FP32 performance. The Quadro 2000M delivers 422.4 GFLOPS, making the MX110 approximately 22% faster.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The MX110's average score of 3,834 is 0.3% above the GeForce GTX 650 and 1.1% above the Intel UHD Graphics 710. The Quadro 2000M's average score of 3,434 is 0.1% above the GeForce GT 740 and 3.1% above the Intel HD Graphics 530.