NVIDIA GeForce MX110 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M dominates the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 in every recorded test, and the margins are substantial.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M3000M scores 16,646 while the MX110 manages 4,255. That is a 74.4% deficit for the MX110, meaning the Quadro delivers roughly four times the compute performance in this workload. The gap is even wider in Geekbench Vulkan: the Quadro scores 16,668 against 3,413 for the MX110, a 79.5% difference. If you are looking at raw numbers, the Quadro is the clear winner, but the story is more nuanced when you consider the intended use cases for each card.

The MX110 sits at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 3,834. Its nearest rivals are the GeForce GTX 650 (average 3,823, just 0.3% behind), the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (average 3,792, 1.1% behind), and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (average 3,883, 1.2% ahead). The MX110 is essentially trading blows with entry-level integrated and low-end discrete graphics from several generations ago. It is not a performance part by any stretch, but it is also not the bottom of the barrel.

The Quadro M3000M, meanwhile, sits at the 27th percentile, with an average score of 4,621. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 970M (average 4,628, just 0.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon R5 M320 (average 4,657, 0.8% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (average 4,657, 0.8% ahead). The Quadro is effectively neck-and-neck with a high-end mobile gaming GPU from the same era, and it edges out several other mobile parts by a single percentage point or less.

The head-to-head tests only cover two workloads, but both tell the same story. The Quadro M3000M wins both, and the delta percentages (74.4% in OpenCL, 79.5% in Vulkan) indicate that the MX110 is not just slightly slower, it is in a completely different performance class. The MX110 has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison, while the Quadro takes both.

Architecture Differences

The underlying silicon tells a story of two very different design goals. The MX110 uses the GM108S chip, built on the Maxwell architecture (the original Maxwell, not the revised version). It is fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, with 1,020 million transistors packed into a 77 mm² die. That gives a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. This is a small, low-power chip designed for basic acceleration in thin-and-light laptops.

The Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip, built on Maxwell 2.0. It is also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but the die is far larger: 398 mm², housing 5,200 million transistors. The density is nearly identical at 13.1 million per square millimeter, which makes sense given the same process node. The difference is scale: the Quadro has over five times the transistor count and over five times the die area. That translates directly into more execution resources.

The MX110 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is exactly four times the shading units, four times the TMUs, and four times the ROPs. The Quadro is not just a bigger chip, it is a symmetrically scaled-up version of the same fundamental design, at least in terms of these core counts.

Memory configurations are also vastly different. The MX110 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s. That is four times the memory capacity and four times the memory bandwidth. Memory bandwidth is often the limiting factor for GPU compute workloads, so this is a critical advantage for the Quadro.

Clock speeds tell a slightly different story. The MX110 has a base clock of 978 MHz and a boost clock of 1006 MHz. The Quadro has a base clock of 823 MHz and a boost of 924 MHz. The MX110 actually clocks higher, which is expected for a smaller, lower-power chip. But the Quadro's massive resource advantage overwhelms the clock deficit. Pixel rate for the MX110 is 8.048 GPixel/s, texture rate is 16.10 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput is 515.1 GFLOPS. The Quadro delivers 29.57 GPixel/s, 59.14 GTexel/s, and 1.892 TFLOPS. In every throughput metric, the Quadro is roughly 3.5 to 4 times faster.

The MX110 has a TDP of 30 W and uses an IGP slot width, meaning it is soldered directly to the motherboard. The Quadro has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM module form factor, which is a standardized mobile graphics card that can be replaced or upgraded. The MX110 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The x16 interface provides four times the bandwidth to the CPU, which matters for data transfer-heavy workloads.

API support is nearly identical, with both supporting OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. DirectX support differs: the MX110 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1). That means the Quadro can handle more advanced DirectX 12 features, which is relevant for newer games and some professional applications. The MX110 is from the GeForce MX (1xx) generation, released on 2017-11-16. The Quadro is from the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation, released on 2015-08-17.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Quadro M3000M for any task that requires significant GPU compute. The Quadro wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 74.4% and 79.5%. It has four times the shading units, four times the TMUs, four times the ROPs, four times the memory, and four times the memory bandwidth. Its FP32 throughput of 1.892 TFLOPS dwarfs the MX110's 515.1 GFLOPS. If you are rendering, running CUDA workloads, or playing anything beyond casual games, the Quadro is the only sensible choice.

The MX110 is not without merit, but its merits are limited to power and size. At 30 W TDP with an IGP form factor, it is designed for ultraportable laptops where space and battery life are at a premium. The Quadro's 75 W TDP and MXM module footprint require a larger chassis with better cooling. The MX110 also has a higher base clock (978 MHz vs. 823 MHz), which can help in lightly threaded tasks where the GPU is not the bottleneck.

If you are choosing between these two for a new system, the Quadro M3000M is the better performer in every measured metric. The only reason to pick the MX110 is if you are constrained by physical space, power budget, or the specific motherboard interface (the MX110 uses x4, the Quadro uses x16). The Quadro is end-of-life, as is the MX110, but the Quadro's performance class is simply higher.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification that matters. The MX110 uses the GM108S chip, the Quadro uses GM204. Both are on a 28 nm TSMC process, but the MX110 has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the Quadro has 5,200 million on 398 mm². Transistor density is almost identical (13.2M vs. 13.1M per mm²), but the scale is not.

Clock speeds: the MX110 runs at 978 MHz base and 1006 MHz boost; the Quadro runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. Memory clocks are the same at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), but the memory subsystems are completely different. The MX110 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro has 4 GB on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s.

Shading units: 256 vs. 1,024. TMUs: 16 vs. 64. ROPs: 8 vs. 32. Pixel rate: 8.048 GPixel/s vs. 29.57 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 16.10 GTexel/s vs. 59.14 GTexel/s. FP32: 515.1 GFLOPS vs. 1.892 TFLOPS. TDP: 30 W vs. 75 W. Slot width: IGP vs. MXM Module. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x4 vs. PCIe 3.0 x16. DirectX: 12 (11_0) vs. 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Both have no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Both are end-of-life. The MX110 released on 2017-11-16, the Quadro on 2015-08-17. The Quadro has a predecessor (Quadro Kepler-M) and a successor (Quadro Pascal-M); the MX110 has neither listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro M3000M scores 16,646 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the MX110 scores 4,255. The Quadro is 74.4% ahead.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro in Vulkan workloads?

A: The Quadro scores 16,668 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 3,413 for the MX110, a 79.5% advantage.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The MX110 has 40.10 GB/s over a 64-bit bus, while the Quadro has 160.4 GB/s over a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which card uses less power?

A: The MX110 has a 30 W TDP and uses an IGP slot width, while the Quadro has a 75 W TDP and uses an MXM Module.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The MX110 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The MX110 has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the Quadro has 5,200 million on a 398 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M3000M wins in every benchmark recorded in the database. That includes both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, with margins of 74.4% and 79.5% respectively. It also wins on every architectural resource: shading units, TMUs, ROPs, memory size, memory bus width, memory bandwidth, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, and bus interface width. If you are running GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific computing, or any CUDA-based workload, the Quadro is the only choice between these two.

The MX110 does have a few narrow advantages. It has a higher base clock (978 MHz vs. 823 MHz) and a higher boost clock (1006 MHz vs. 924 MHz). It also has a lower TDP (30 W vs. 75 W) and a smaller physical footprint (IGP vs. MXM Module), which makes it suitable for ultra-thin laptops where the Quadro physically cannot fit. The MX110's PCIe x4 interface is sufficient for its modest performance, and it can handle basic desktop acceleration, video playback, and light productivity tasks without breaking a sweat.

In practical terms, the MX110 is for users who need a discrete GPU for everyday tasks in a compact chassis, where power draw and space are the primary constraints. The Quadro M3000M is for users who need real compute performance in a mobile workstation, where the GPU is expected to handle professional applications, 3D modeling, and compute workloads. The data does not support any scenario where the MX110 outperforms the Quadro in raw performance; the only scenarios where the MX110 makes sense are those where the Quadro cannot be used due to physical or power limitations.