NVIDIA GeForce MX110 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

The benchmark data places the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D in the single available head-to-head test, yet the overall performance picture is notably closer than a single win suggests. The MX110’s victory in Geekbench OpenCL is decisive but narrow, while the K2000D’s architectural strengths and driver maturity in professional workloads remain relevant. This analysis breaks down the numbers, the architectural chasm between Kepler and Maxwell, and the specific use cases where each card retains an edge.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 scores 4,255 against the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D’s 3,919. That is a 7.9% delta in favor of the MX110, a solid but not overwhelming margin. In raw compute terms, the MX110’s 515.1 GFLOPS FP32 output is actually lower than the K2000D’s 732.7 GFLOPS, yet the newer Maxwell architecture extracts better OpenCL utilization from fewer shading units (256 vs. 384). This suggests the MX110’s advantage comes from architectural efficiency rather than brute throughput.

Contextualizing these scores against the nearest rivals clarifies the field. The K2000D’s 3,919 score sits just 0.3% below the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3,930) and 0.5% above the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3,898). It also trails the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M by 0.9% (3,953) but beats the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics by 0.9% (3,883). Meanwhile, the MX110’s 4,255 score is 0.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (3,823) and 1.1% above the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3,792), though it falls 1.2% short of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3,883) and 1.6% short of the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3,898). Both cards land in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, indicating they are entry-level performers in the broader market.

The MX110 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3,413, which the K2000D lacks entirely. This is a meaningful gap in modern API support, as the MX110’s Vulkan 1.4 driver capability (vs. the K2000D’s Vulkan 1.2.175) enables better performance in Vulkan-based workloads. The K2000D’s OpenCL score is its only benchmark data point, so any assessment of its gaming or compute versatility is limited to that single metric.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is the faster card in general compute tasks, winning the only head-to-head benchmark by 7.9%. Its higher OpenCL score, combined with a Vulkan score that the K2000D cannot match, makes it the better choice for users prioritizing raw benchmark performance in modern APIs. The MX110 also consumes less power (30 W TDP vs. 51 W), making it a more efficient option for portable or low-power systems.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is not without arguments in its favor. Its FP32 compute output is 42% higher (732.7 GFLOPS vs. 515.1 GFLOPS), and its texture rate is nearly double (30.53 GTexel/s vs. 16.10 GTexel/s). These specs suggest the K2000D would outperform the MX110 in texture-heavy or compute-bound professional workloads, even if the OpenCL benchmark does not reflect that. The K2000D also has a wider memory bus (128-bit vs. 64-bit) and higher memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs. 40.10 GB/s), which can matter in large dataset operations.

The verdict is split by use case. For a laptop or compact system where power efficiency and modern API support are paramount, the MX110 is the data-backed pick. For a desktop workstation requiring dual DVI output and higher raw throughput, the K2000D’s specs justify its existence despite the benchmark loss. Neither card is a winner outright; each serves a different operational context.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA generations, and that distinction drives most of their behavioral differences. The Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip based on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on TSMC’s 28 nm process. The GeForce MX110 uses the GM108S chip based on the Maxwell architecture, also on a 28 nm process from TSMC. The process node is identical, but the microarchitectures are not.

Kepler is an older design, introduced with a focus on compute efficiency and power scaling. The K2000D’s GK107 packs 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². Maxwell, by contrast, is a more modern architecture that prioritizes per-core efficiency and better utilization of available resources. The MX110’s GM108S contains 1,020 million transistors on a smaller 77 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 13.2M per mm². This density advantage is a direct result of architectural refinements, not process improvements.

The core configurations differ substantially. The K2000D has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The MX110 halves the TMUs and ROPs to 16 and 8, respectively, and reduces shading units to 256. This makes the K2000D a wider design, while the MX110 is narrower but more efficient per core. The K2000D’s pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s, slightly lower than the MX110’s 8.048 GPixel/s, despite having twice the ROPs—a sign that Maxwell’s pixel throughput is more efficient. The texture rate tells the opposite story: the K2000D hits 30.53 GTexel/s versus the MX110’s 16.10 GTexel/s, a 90% advantage that reflects the K2000D’s double TMU count.

Memory subsystems also diverge. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5, but the K2000D runs on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX110 uses a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. The K2000D’s memory clock is listed at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the MX110’s is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), yet the wider bus still gives the K2000D the bandwidth lead.

Power and physical design are starkly different. The K2000D is a 51 W single-slot card requiring a 250 W suggested PSU, with no power connectors, and measures 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The MX110 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 30 W TDP, no PSU requirement listed, and dimensions dependent on the portable device it is embedded in. The K2000D offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the MX110’s display outputs are portable-device dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 scores 4,255 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3,919, giving the MX110 a 7.9% advantage in that test.

Q: Does the Quadro K2000D support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the K2000D supports Vulkan 1.2.175, but it has no published Vulkan benchmark score. The MX110 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3,413 and supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The K2000D has a 128-bit memory bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX110 has a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, making the K2000D 60% higher in memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K2000D has 384 shading units, which is 50% more than the GeForce MX110’s 256 shading units.

Q: Are both GPUs manufactured on the same process node?

A: Yes, both use TSMC’s 28 nm process, but the K2000D’s die is 118 mm² while the MX110’s is 77 mm², resulting in different transistor densities.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W, while the GeForce MX110 has a TDP of 30 W, making the MX110 the lower-power option.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 wins the compute benchmark category outright, taking the only head-to-head test with a 7.9% margin. It also wins on efficiency, with a 30 W TDP versus the K2000D’s 51 W, and on modern API support, offering Vulkan 1.4 and a functional Vulkan benchmark score. The MX110’s higher pixel rate (8.048 GPixel/s vs. 7.632 GPixel/s) gives it a slight edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios, despite having half the ROPs. For users in portable devices or low-power systems, the MX110 is the clear data-driven choice.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D wins on raw compute throughput, with FP32 performance of 732.7 GFLOPS compared to the MX110’s 515.1 GFLOPS, a 42% advantage. Its texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s is 90% higher than the MX110’s 16.10 GTexel/s, making it the stronger card for texture-heavy workloads like CAD rendering or scientific visualization. The K2000D’s memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs. 40.10 GB/s) and wider 128-bit bus also give it an edge in memory-intensive tasks. The K2000D’s dual DVI and mini-DisplayPort outputs make it a better fit for multi-monitor professional setups, whereas the MX110’s outputs depend on the host device.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field except memory size (both 2 GB), memory type (both GDDR5), and power connector requirement (none for either). The K2000D uses the GK107 chip on Kepler architecture, while the MX110 uses GM108S on Maxwell. The K2000D has a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, while the MX110 has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Transistor density favors the MX110 at 13.2M per mm² versus the K2000D’s 10.8M per mm².

The K2000D has no base or boost clock listed, while the MX110 runs at 978 MHz base and 1006 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ: the K2000D uses 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), and the MX110 uses 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The K2000D has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, versus the MX110’s 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rates are 7.632 GPixel/s for the K2000D and 8.048 GPixel/s for the MX110, while texture rates are 30.53 GTexel/s and 16.10 GTexel/s, respectively. FP32 performance is 732.7 GFLOPS for the K2000D and 515.1 GFLOPS for the MX110.

TDP differences are significant: 51 W for the K2000D versus 30 W for the MX110. The K2000D is a single-slot card with a 250 W suggested PSU, while the MX110 is an IGP with no PSU suggestion. Bus interfaces differ, with the K2000D using PCIe 2.0 x16 and the MX110 using PCIe 3.0 x4. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for the K2000D, versus portable-device dependent for the MX110. API support shows the K2000D with DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the MX110 matches DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but offers Vulkan 1.4. The K2000D is 202 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the MX110 has no listed dimensions. Release dates are February 28, 2013 for the K2000D and November 16, 2017 for the MX110, with the K2000D having a launch MSRP of 599 USD and the MX110 having none.