NVIDIA GeForce MX110 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, separated by nearly seven years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear, if modest, overall victory for the newer MX110, though the Quadro 3000M retains specific strengths in memory bandwidth and texture throughput that make the comparison more nuanced than a simple scoreboard.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it decisively favors the newer part. The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 scores 4255 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M manages 3718 points. This represents a 14.4% advantage for the MX110, a significant margin in raw compute performance. This result aligns with the MX110’s higher FP32 throughput of 515.1 GFLOPS compared to the Quadro 3000M’s 432.0 GFLOPS, showing that the newer Maxwell architecture extracts substantially more compute work from its hardware.

The MX110’s win is not a fluke of a single test. Its average benchmark score across all tests stands at 3834, compared to the Quadro 3000M’s 3718 average. The MX110 also holds a slight edge in overall GPU percentile ranking, sitting at the 23rd percentile versus the Quadro 3000M’s 22nd. While these percentile differences are small, they consistently place the MX110 ahead in the aggregate. The MX110’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (average score 3823, delta 0.3%) and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (average score 3883, delta -1.2%), showing it sits in a competitive mid-range tier. The Quadro 3000M, by contrast, is bracketed by the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M (average score 3717, delta 0%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M (average score 3740, delta -0.6%), indicating it performs at a similar level to older mainstream mobile GPUs.

However, the Quadro 3000M is not without its own victories in specification-driven workloads. Its memory bandwidth is exactly double that of the MX110: 80.00 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s. This is a direct result of the Quadro’s 256-bit memory bus compared to the MX110’s 64-bit bus. In memory-intensive tasks, such as large texture loads or high-resolution framebuffer operations, the Quadro 3000M’s superior bandwidth could narrow the gap or even reverse the outcome. The texture rate also favors the Quadro 3000M, which delivers 18.00 GTexel/s against the MX110’s 16.10 GTexel/s, thanks to its 40 TMUs versus 16. The Quadro also has a substantial fill-rate advantage in pixel throughput at 4.500 GPixel/s, though the MX110’s 8.048 GPixel/s actually wins that category outright. The MX110 compensates with a higher pixel rate due to its higher clock speeds, but the Quadro’s raw memory subsystem remains a formidable asset.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 wins decisively, scoring 4255 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 3718 for the Quadro 3000M, a 14.4% advantage. Its FP32 throughput is 515.1 GFLOPS compared to 432.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro.

Q: Does the Quadro 3000M have any performance advantages?

A: Yes, the Quadro 3000M has a significant memory bandwidth advantage at 80.00 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s for the MX110, due to its 256-bit bus. It also has a higher texture rate of 18.00 GTexel/s compared to 16.10 GTexel/s, indicating better performance in texture-heavy workloads.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The MX110 has an average benchmark score of 3834, while the Quadro 3000M averages 3718. The MX110’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 with an average score of 3823 (0.3% delta), while the Quadro 3000M’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M at 3717 (0% delta).

Q: How do these GPUs compare in terms of power consumption?

A: The MX110 has a TDP of 30 W, while the Quadro 3000M has a TDP of 75 W. The MX110 is designed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP), whereas the Quadro 3000M is a MXM module, indicating different thermal and power envelopes.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The MX110 additionally supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 3000M has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The MX110’s GM108S chip has a transistor density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Quadro 3000M’s GF104 chip has 5.9 million per square millimeter. This reflects the MX110’s newer 28 nm process versus the Quadro’s 40 nm node.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 as the superior choice for general-purpose compute and modern application compatibility. Its 14.4% lead in the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, combined with a higher average benchmark score (3834 vs 3718) and a slightly better percentile ranking (23rd vs 22nd), makes it the stronger all-around performer. The MX110 also delivers more than double the pixel rate (8.048 GPixel/s vs 4.500 GPixel/s) and higher FP32 compute, which translates to better performance in most modern games and compute tasks.

The Quadro 3000M, however, is the better option for workloads that are heavily dependent on memory bandwidth. Its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth is a full 100% higher than the MX110’s 40.10 GB/s, and its 256-bit bus allows for much faster data transfers in large dataset operations. Its texture rate of 18.00 GTexel/s also exceeds the MX110’s 16.10 GTexel/s, suggesting it could handle high-resolution texture filtering more efficiently. Users running professional applications that stress memory subsystems, such as certain CAD or simulation tools, might find the Quadro 3000M’s characteristics more favorable despite its lower raw compute score.

For most users, the MX110 is the clear winner. It offers better compute performance, higher pixel throughput, and modern API support including Vulkan 1.4, all within a 30 W TDP. The Quadro 3000M, with its 75 W TDP and older Fermi architecture, is a legacy part that only makes sense if memory bandwidth is the absolute bottleneck in a specific workflow. The benchmark data shows the MX110 wins 1-0 in head-to-head tests, and that result is consistent with the broader performance metrics.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply in their fundamental specifications. The MX110 uses a 28 nm process node, while the Quadro 3000M uses a 40 nm node. The MX110’s chip, GM108S, contains 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro 3000M’s GF104 chip has 1,950 million transistors on a much larger 332 mm² die, with a density of only 5.9 million per square millimeter. Clock speeds also differ: the MX110 has a base clock of 978 MHz and a boost clock of 1006 MHz, while the Quadro 3000M has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the MX110 and 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) for the Quadro.

The memory subsystems are vastly different. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the MX110 uses a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 3000M uses a 256-bit bus with exactly double the bandwidth at 80.00 GB/s. The shading units also differ: the MX110 has 256, while the Quadro 3000M has 240. Texture mapping units are 16 for the MX110 and 40 for the Quadro, and ROPs are 8 versus 32. The MX110’s pixel rate is 8.048 GPixel/s versus 4.500 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and its texture rate is 16.10 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 515.1 GFLOPS for the MX110 and 432.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro.

Power and physical specifications differ as well. The MX110 has a TDP of 30 W and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), while the Quadro 3000M has a TDP of 75 W and is an MXM Module. The MX110 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface, while the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0). Neither has power connectors listed, and both have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro lists no Vulkan support. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, reflecting their different release eras. The MX110 is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, designed for high efficiency and improved performance per watt. The Quadro 3000M uses the older Fermi architecture, which was known for strong compute performance but higher power consumption and heat generation. The MX110’s chip is GM108S, while the Quadro’s is GF104.

The process node difference is critical: the MX110 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the Quadro 3000M uses a 40 nm process. This explains why the MX110 achieves a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter versus only 5.9 million for the Quadro, despite the Quadro having nearly twice the total transistors (1,950 million vs 1,020 million). The MX110’s die is also much smaller at 77 mm² versus 332 mm², a direct result of the more advanced manufacturing process.

The memory architecture reflects a different design philosophy. The Quadro 3000M, with its 256-bit bus and 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, was designed for professional workloads requiring high data throughput. The MX110, with a 64-bit bus and 40.10 GB/s, is optimized for low power consumption in thin-and-light laptops. The Quadro’s 32 ROPs and 40 TMUs suggest a design aimed at heavy rasterization and texture work, while the MX110’s 8 ROPs and 16 TMUs prioritize basic rendering efficiency.

The API support shows the generational shift. The MX110 includes Vulkan 1.4 support, a modern low-overhead API, while the Quadro 3000M has no Vulkan support listed. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the MX110’s Maxwell architecture is more likely to have optimized drivers for modern applications. The Quadro 3000M’s Fermi architecture is end-of-life, and its generation is listed as “Quadro Fermi-M (x000M),” while the MX110 is from the “GeForce MX (1xx)” generation. The Quadro’s predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M, placing it in a historical lineage that the MX110 does not share.