NVIDIA GeForce MX110 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro K3000M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and NVIDIA GeForce MX110 represent two very different generations of mobile graphics, separated by over five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, with the GeForce MX110 edging out the Quadro K3000M by a razor-thin 0.3% margin in Geekbench OpenCL — a statistical tie that masks significant underlying differences in design philosophy, power efficiency, and feature support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GeForce MX110 scores 4255 against the Quadro K3000M's 4241. That delta of -0.3% from the Quadro's perspective means the MX110 is effectively 0.3% faster — a margin well within normal run-to-run variance. Neither card can claim a meaningful performance victory here.

What matters more is how each card positions itself against its own competitive set. The Quadro K3000M sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4241. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly around it: the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 4268 (-0.6% relative to the Quadro), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282 (-1%), and the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4295 (-1.3%). The Quadro also trades blows with the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, which scores 4193 — putting the Quadro 1.2% ahead of that desktop-class part. This is a GPU that sits squarely in the mid-pack, neither embarrassing itself nor standing out.

The GeForce MX110, meanwhile, sits at the 23rd percentile — slightly lower overall — but its average benchmark score of 3834 is dragged down by its Vulkan result of 3413, which is notably weaker than its OpenCL score of 4255. In OpenCL, the MX110 matches the Quadro almost exactly. Against its own rivals, the MX110 leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 by 0.3% (3823), leads the Intel UHD Graphics 710 by 1.1% (3792), but trails the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics by 1.2% (3883) and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 by 1.6% (3898). The pattern is consistent: these are all entry-level parts separated by single-digit percentage points.

The headline takeaway from the head-to-head data is that raw compute performance is essentially identical between the Quadro K3000M and the MX110. The differences that matter lie elsewhere — in power consumption, memory bandwidth, and API support.

The Verdict

The benchmark data alone cannot separate these two GPUs; a 0.3% delta in OpenCL is noise. The verdict must come from contextual factors.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput in OpenCL workloads, either card will deliver nearly identical results. The Quadro K3000M's 25th percentile ranking and the MX110's 23rd percentile ranking place both firmly in entry-level territory. Neither card will impress in demanding modern workloads.

The GeForce MX110 is the better choice for battery-conscious laptop users. Its 30 W TDP is less than half the Quadro K3000M's 75 W TDP, and it integrates as an IGP with a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface — meaning it can be paired with ultra-portable designs that the MXM-module Quadro cannot fit into. The MX110 also supports Vulkan 1.4, a significantly newer API revision than the Quadro's Vulkan 1.2.175, which matters for compatibility with modern software.

The Quadro K3000M, despite being older, offers distinct advantages in memory architecture. Its 256-bit bus width and 89.60 GB/s bandwidth dwarf the MX110's 64-bit bus and 40.10 GB/s — a 2.2x bandwidth advantage that can matter in memory-bound workloads even when raw FLOP counts are similar. The Quadro also delivers higher texture fill rates (31.39 GTexel/s vs 16.10 GTexel/s) and nearly double the FP32 throughput (753.4 GFLOPS vs 515.1 GFLOPS), despite scoring nearly identically in OpenCL.

In short: if you need maximum bandwidth and texture throughput for professional applications, the Quadro K3000M is the data-backed pick. If you need efficiency and modern API support, the MX110 wins.

Where Each One Wins

Quadro K3000M advantages:

• Memory bandwidth: 89.60 GB/s vs 40.10 GB/s — a 2.2x advantage
• Texture fill rate: 31.39 GTexel/s vs 16.10 GTexel/s — nearly double
• FP32 compute: 753.4 GFLOPS vs 515.1 GFLOPS — 46% higher
• Pixel rate: 7.848 GPixel/s vs 8.048 GPixel/s — essentially tied, slightly favoring MX110
• Shading units: 576 vs 256 — more than double
• TMUs: 48 vs 16 — triple the texture units
• ROPs: 32 vs 8 — quadruple the render output units

GeForce MX110 advantages:

• Power efficiency: 30 W TDP vs 75 W TDP — less than half the power draw
• OpenCL score: 4255 vs 4241 — a 0.3% edge in the direct benchmark
• Vulkan support: 1.4 vs 1.2.175 — significantly newer API
• Base clock: 978 MHz vs 654 MHz — 50% higher clock speed
• Boost clock: 1006 MHz vs 654 MHz — the Quadro has no boost capability
• Memory clock: 5 Gbps effective vs 2.8 Gbps effective — 79% faster
• Transistor density: 13.2M / mm² vs 12.0M / mm² — more efficient packing

The Quadro's hardware specifications suggest it should dominate in compute-heavy tasks, yet the benchmark gap is negligible. This indicates the MX110's newer Maxwell architecture extracts more real-world performance per FLOP than the older Kepler design. The MX110 achieves 515.1 GFLOPS of theoretical compute yet matches a card with 753.4 GFLOPS — a 46% efficiency advantage in practice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GeForce MX110 scores 4255 versus the Quadro K3000M's 4241, a margin of 0.3%. This is effectively a tie.

Q: How do these cards compare in power consumption?

A: The Quadro K3000M has a 75 W TDP, while the GeForce MX110 consumes just 30 W — less than half the power draw.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K3000M offers 89.60 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the MX110 provides 40.10 GB/s over a 64-bit bus. The Quadro has a 2.2x bandwidth advantage.

Q: Do these GPUs support modern APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K3000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How do they rank against all other GPUs?

A: The Quadro K3000M sits at the 25th percentile, while the GeForce MX110 sits at the 23rd percentile. Both are entry-level performers.

Q: What are their closest competitors?

A: For the Quadro K3000M, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon Vega 3 at 4268 (-0.6%). For the MX110, the closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 at 3823 (-0.3% relative to the MX110, or 0.3% ahead of it).

Architecture Differences

The Quadro K3000M and GeForce MX110 could not be more different under the hood, despite their similar benchmark scores.

Process and die: Both use TSMC's 28 nm process, but the Quadro K3000M packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, while the MX110 fits 1,020 million transistors into just 77 mm². The MX110 achieves a higher transistor density of 13.2M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm² for the Quadro.

Architecture generation: The Quadro K3000M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, part of the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) generation. The MX110 uses Maxwell with the GM108S chip, part of the GeForce MX (1xx) generation. Maxwell is a significantly newer design that extracts more performance per clock and per watt.

Memory subsystem: The Quadro features 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The MX110 also has 2 GB of GDDR5 but on a 64-bit bus with just 40.10 GB/s. The Quadro's memory runs at 2.8 Gbps effective, while the MX110's runs at 5 Gbps effective — the MX110's faster memory clock partially compensates for its narrower bus.

Compute resources: The Quadro has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MX110 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro's hardware advantage is substantial, yet it fails to translate into benchmark superiority.

Clocks: The Quadro runs at a fixed 654 MHz with no boost capability. The MX110 runs at 978 MHz base and boosts to 1006 MHz — a 54% higher clock speed that helps close the compute gap.

Physical design: The Quadro uses an MXM-B (3.0) module form factor, making it replaceable in compatible laptops. The MX110 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) on PCIe 3.0 x4, soldered to the motherboard and found in ultra-thin designs.

Release timeline: The Quadro K3000M launched on 2012-05-31, while the MX110 launched on 2017-11-16 — a gap of over five years. Both are now end-of-life products, but the MX110 benefits from five additional years of architectural refinement. The Quadro's predecessor was the Quadro Fermi-M, and its successor was the Quadro Maxwell-M; the MX110 has no recorded predecessor or successor in the data.

API support: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the MX110's Vulkan 1.4 support is substantially newer than the Quadro's Vulkan 1.2.175 — a meaningful difference for modern Linux and Vulkan-based applications.