NVIDIA GeForce MX110 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and GeForce MX110 represent two very different approaches to mobile and small-form-factor graphics, separated by nearly five years of GPU architecture evolution. The K2000 is a professional workstation card from 2013 built on the Kepler architecture, while the MX110 is a 2017 entry-level laptop part based on Maxwell. Despite their different market positions, benchmark results show they are surprisingly close in raw compute performance, with each taking a decisive win in different API workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro K2000 leads with an average benchmark score of 3964, compared to 3834 for the MX110. That is a 3.4% advantage for the older workstation card.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The MX110 wins the geekbench_opencl test with a score of 4255, beating the K2000's 4071 by 4.3%. This is the newer card's strongest showing.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro K2000 dominates the geekbench_vulkan test, scoring 4191 against the MX110's 3413. That is a massive 22.8% lead for the workstation card.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The K2000's GK107 chip contains 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, while the MX110's GM108S packs 1,020 million transistors into just 77 mm². The MX110 achieves a higher transistor density of 13.2M / mm² versus 10.8M / mm².

Q: How do their memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The K2000 has a 128-bit memory bus delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly 60% more than the MX110's 64-bit bus at 40.10 GB/s.

Q: What are their percentile rankings among all GPUs?

A: The K2000 sits at the 24th percentile, while the MX110 is at the 23rd percentile. Both are firmly in the entry-level performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The K2000 uses the GK107 chip built on TSMC's 28 nm process, part of NVIDIA's Kepler architecture. The MX110 uses the GM108S chip, also on 28 nm but based on the newer Maxwell architecture. This architectural shift is significant: Maxwell introduced substantial efficiency improvements over Kepler, which shows up in the power and thermal characteristics of these cards.

The K2000's GK107 die measures 118 mm² and houses 1,270 million transistors, for a density of 10.8M per mm². The MX110's GM108S is smaller at 77 mm² with 1,020 million transistors, but packs them tighter at 13.2M per mm². The MX110's higher density reflects the more advanced design of Maxwell, even though both use the same manufacturing node.

Shading unit counts differ substantially. The K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The MX110 has only 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite having fewer execution resources, the MX110 achieves a higher pixel rate of 8.048 GPixel/s versus 7.632 GPixel/s for the K2000, a signal of Maxwell's improved efficiency per clock. The K2000 compensates with a much higher texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s, because it has double the TMUs.

The MX110 also has explicit clock specifications: a base clock of 978 MHz and boost clock of 1006 MHz. The K2000's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data, which is typical for older professional parts that were often locked to reference specifications. Memory clock differences are notable: the K2000 runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the MX110 runs at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their head-to-head benchmark matchups exactly one win each. The MX110 takes the geekbench_opencl test with a score of 4255 against the K2000's 4071, a 4.3% margin. This is a meaningful victory for the newer card, showing that Maxwell's architecture can extract more OpenCL performance from fewer hardware resources.

The K2000 responds emphatically in geekbench_vulkan, scoring 4191 versus the MX110's 3413. That is a 22.8% advantage, the largest performance gap in any direct comparison between these two cards. The K2000's Vulkan result is particularly impressive because it is an older GPU with a lower average benchmark score overall, yet it completely outclasses the MX110 in this API.

These results tell a clear story about API optimization. The MX110's Vulkan score of 3413 is actually lower than its OpenCL score of 4255, while the K2000's Vulkan score of 4191 is higher than its OpenCL score of 4071. The K2000 clearly benefits from Vulkan's lower overhead and more direct hardware access, while the MX110 seems to struggle in this workload.

In terms of relative positioning against their respective rival groups, the K2000's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 with an average score of 3977, which beats it by 0.3%. The MX110's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 at 3898, which the MX110 trails by 1.6%. Both GPUs sit in a crowded field of entry-level parts, with the K2000 performing marginally better overall.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is in power consumption. The K2000 has a TDP of 51 W, while the MX110 draws only 30 W. This 21 W difference is substantial for mobile and small-form-factor applications. The MX110's lower power draw makes it suitable for IGP (integrated graphics processor) implementations, while the K2000 requires a single-slot expansion card with a 250 W suggested PSU.

Memory configurations differ in bus width and bandwidth. The K2000 uses a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX110 uses a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the K2000's wider bus gives it a significant bandwidth advantage that likely helps in texture-heavy workloads.

The bus interface is another differentiator. The K2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, providing full bandwidth for a desktop or workstation slot. The MX110 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, which has a narrower physical connection but newer protocol. This reflects the MX110's design for portable devices where space and power are at a premium.

Display outputs are completely different. The K2000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs for professional multi-monitor setups. The MX110's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop implementation. The K2000 measures 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the MX110 has no listed dimensions because it is designed to be soldered directly onto laptop motherboards.

The K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The MX110 supports the same DirectX and OpenGL versions but has a newer Vulkan 1.4 implementation. In practice, the K2000's superior Vulkan benchmark score suggests its hardware design is better suited to the API despite the older driver-level support.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2000 wins decisively in Vulkan workloads, with a 22.8% lead over the MX110. This makes it the better choice for applications that leverage Vulkan for rendering, such as modern game engines or compute-heavy visualization tools. The K2000 also has a significant advantage in texture throughput, with 30.53 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s, and in memory bandwidth, with 64.00 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s. These strengths point toward scenarios involving heavy texture sampling or large data sets that benefit from wide memory buses.

The MX110 wins in OpenCL performance, beating the K2000 by 4.3% with a score of 4255 versus 4071. Its higher pixel rate of 8.048 GPixel/s versus 7.632 GPixel/s also gives it a slight edge in fill-rate-bound operations. The MX110's 30 W TDP makes it the clear winner for battery-powered laptops or fanless designs where thermal and power budgets are tight. Its PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while narrower, offers newer protocol features that may benefit certain workloads.

For average benchmark performance, the K2000 edges ahead with 3964 versus 3834, a 3.4% advantage. This overall lead is driven by the K2000's massive Vulkan win, which outweighs the MX110's more modest OpenCL advantage. The K2000 also has the benefit of being a professional Quadro card, which historically includes enhanced driver validation for workstation applications, though this is not directly quantified in the benchmark data.

The Verdict

Choose the Quadro K2000 if you need Vulkan performance. Its 4191 Vulkan score is 22.8% higher than the MX110's, making it the clear winner for any workload that uses this API. The K2000 also offers 60% more memory bandwidth and nearly double the texture fill rate, which are critical for professional 3D rendering and CAD applications. Its 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs support multi-monitor workstation setups, and its 24th percentile ranking slightly edges out the MX110's 23rd.

Choose the GeForce MX110 if power efficiency and OpenCL performance are your priorities. Its 30 W TDP is 41% lower than the K2000's 51 W, making it far better suited for thin-and-light laptops. The MX110 wins the OpenCL test by 4.3%, and its higher pixel rate suggests better performance in pixel-shader-bound scenarios. The 5 Gbps effective memory speed is also faster than the K2000's 4 Gbps, even though the narrower bus limits overall bandwidth.

The data shows two GPUs that are closer than their release dates suggest. The K2000, launched in 2013 at a 599 USD launch MSRP, maintains a slight edge in average performance thanks to its superior Vulkan implementation. The MX110, released in 2017 with no listed MSRP, counters with better OpenCL scores and dramatically lower power consumption. Neither card is a clear overall winner; instead, the right choice depends entirely on whether your workloads favor Vulkan or OpenCL, and whether you need a desktop workstation card or a mobile IGP solution. For raw versatility, the K2000's wider memory bus and professional feature set give it a narrow recommendation, but the MX110's efficiency makes it the sensible pick for portable systems.