NVIDIA GeForce MX110 vs NVIDIA Quadro P1000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 in every recorded test. In the Geekbench OpenCL workload, the Quadro P1000 scores 13,584 against the GeForce MX110's 4,255. That is a 68.7% advantage for the Quadro, meaning the MX110 delivers less than one-third of the compute performance in this OpenCL test. The gap is substantial enough that the two cards are not competing in the same performance class for general-purpose compute.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though with a slightly narrower margin. The Quadro P1000 posts 7,739 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GeForce MX110 manages 3,413. The Quadro leads by 55.9%, which still represents a massive performance gulf. Vulkan workloads tend to favor architectures with higher shader counts and wider memory buses, and the data reflects that here.

Looking at the broader database context, the MX110's average benchmark score of 3,834 places it in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 at 3,823 (0.3% slower), the Intel UHD Graphics 710 at 3,792 (1.1% slower), and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics at 3,883 (1.2% faster). The MX110 sits in a tightly clustered group of low-end parts, where a few percentage points separate neighbors. The Quadro 2000, at 3,898, is only 1.6% faster than the MX110, making these cards near-equals in aggregate performance.

The Quadro P1000, by contrast, shows an average benchmark score of 3,163, which places it in the 20th percentile of all GPUs. This lower average is somewhat misleading because the Quadro has a much wider benchmark suite recorded: nine tests versus the MX110's two. The Quadro's PassMark scores include DirectX 9 at 79, DirectX 10 at 21, DirectX 11 at 31, DirectX 12 at 19, G2D at 589, G3D at 4,512, and GPU Compute at 1,891. These legacy DirectX tests drag down the average, even though the card's G3D score of 4,512 is respectable. The MX110 has no PassMark entries in the database, so its average is computed solely from the two Geekbench runs.

When comparing the Quadro P1000 to its nearest rivals, the picture is equally nuanced. The Intel Arc Pro B60 scores 3,182, which is 0.6% faster than the Quadro. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 scores 3,210, 1.5% faster. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER scores 3,075, which is 2.9% slower than the Quadro. The NVIDIA GeForce 920M scores 3,287, 3.8% faster. These deltas are all within a few percentage points, indicating that the Quadro P1000's average sits in a competitive mid-pack, despite its strong individual benchmark wins over the MX110.

The head-to-head record is unambiguous: the Quadro P1000 wins both recorded comparisons, while the MX110 wins none. The OpenCL delta of 68.7% is the single largest margin in the dataset, and the Vulkan delta of 55.9% reinforces the pattern.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for any workload that stresses compute or graphics throughput. The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 by wide margins in both OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks. The Quadro's 68.7% lead in OpenCL and 55.9% lead in Vulkan are not marginal differences; they represent fundamentally different performance tiers. For users choosing between these two for tasks like GPU-accelerated rendering, compute workloads, or modern API-based gaming, the Quadro P1000 is the only reasonable choice based on recorded measurements.

The MX110's sole advantage lies in its lower power draw. The MX110 has a TDP of 30 W, while the Quadro P1000 has a TDP of 47 W. For ultra-portable devices where power envelopes are tight and cooling is minimal, the MX110 may be the only viable option. The MX110 is also an integrated form factor (IGP), meaning it is designed to be soldered onto a motherboard or used in compact systems. The Quadro P1000 is a single-slot add-in card with dimensions of 150 mm length and 69 mm height, requiring a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot and a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Who should pick the Quadro P1000? Anyone who needs actual graphics or compute performance. The data shows a 3.2x raw score advantage in OpenCL and a 2.3x advantage in Vulkan. The Quadro also has 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB, double the memory bus width (128-bit versus 64-bit), and double the memory bandwidth (80.19 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s). These are not subtle differences.

Who should pick the MX110? Only those constrained by physical space and power. The MX110 uses no power connectors and draws 30 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where a discrete GPU is needed but a full-height card is impossible. The Quadro P1000 also uses no power connectors, but its 47 W TDP and single-slot profile still require a larger chassis.

The percentile rankings complicate a simple "winner" narrative. The MX110 sits at the 23rd percentile, while the Quadro P1000 sits at the 20th percentile. The Quadro's lower percentile is driven by its broader benchmark suite, which includes legacy DirectX tests where it scores very low (e.g., DirectX 10 at 21, DirectX 12 at 19). In pure compute terms, the Quadro is far ahead, but if a user's workload involves older APIs, the MX110's limited benchmark set does not reveal any comparable data, so no direct comparison is possible for those legacy paths.

The verdict is straightforward: for modern workloads, the Quadro P1000 is the superior part by every measured metric. For minimum-power, space-constrained deployments, the MX110 remains a valid, if weak, option.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 wins decisively. It scores 13,584 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 scores 4,255, giving the Quadro a 68.7% lead.

Q: Is the GeForce MX110 competitive in any benchmark?

A: No. The MX110 wins zero head-to-head benchmarks. The Quadro P1000 wins both recorded tests, and the MX110's best result is 3,413 in Vulkan, which is still 55.9% below the Quadro's 7,739.

Q: How does the MX110 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The MX110's average score of 3,834 is within 1.6% of the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3,898), within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3,883), and 0.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (3,823). It is a mid-pack low-end performer.

Q: What is the Quadro P1000's standing among its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro P1000's average score of 3,163 sits between the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER (3,075, 2.9% slower) and the Intel Arc Pro B60 (3,182, 0.6% faster). The NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 is 1.5% faster, and the NVIDIA GeForce 920M is 3.8% faster.

Q: Does the Quadro P1000 have a higher transistor count?

A: Yes. The Quadro P1000 uses the GP107 chip with 3,300 million transistors, while the MX110 uses the GM108S chip with 1,020 million transistors. The Quadro also uses a 14 nm process from Samsung, compared to the MX110's 28 nm process from TSMC.

Q: Are there any memory differences that affect performance?

A: Yes. The Quadro P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The MX110 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro has exactly double the bus width and double the bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The most striking difference is the memory subsystem. The Quadro P1000 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX110 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s. The Quadro has exactly twice the bus width and twice the bandwidth.

Compute resources also diverge sharply. The Quadro P1000 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The MX110 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro has 2.5x the shaders, 2.5x the TMUs, and 4x the ROPs. Pixel rate for the Quadro is 47.36 GPixel/s versus 8.048 GPixel/s for the MX110, a 5.9x difference. Texture rate is 59.20 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s, a 3.7x difference. FP32 compute is 1.894 TFLOPS versus 515.1 GFLOPS, a 3.7x difference.

Clock speeds differ as well. The Quadro P1000 has a base clock of 1266 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz. The MX110 has a base clock of 978 MHz and a boost clock of 1006 MHz. Memory clock is identical at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for both.

Power and physical specifications are also distinct. The MX110 has a TDP of 30 W and is an IGP (integrated) form factor with no power connectors. The Quadro P1000 has a TDP of 47 W, is a single-slot card, and uses no power connectors but requires a suggested PSU of 200 W. The MX110 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the MX110 is "Portable Device Dependent," while the Quadro has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The Quadro has physical dimensions of 150 mm length and 69 mm height; the MX110 has no recorded dimensions.

DirectX support differs. The MX110 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro P1000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is fundamental. The MX110 is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip. The Quadro P1000 is built on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, using the GP107 chip. These are different generations with different design priorities.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The MX110 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Quadro P1000 uses a 14 nm process at Samsung. The smaller process node allows the Quadro to pack 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.0 million per mm². The MX110 has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding 13.2 million per mm². The Quadro has nearly double the transistor density.

The Quadro's Pascal architecture supports a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_0), which matters for modern game and compute APIs. The MX110's Maxwell architecture is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning it lacks some feature-level capabilities. Both support Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6.

The Quadro P1000 has a 2.5x larger shader array and 4x the ROPs. The FP16 compute for the Quadro is listed at 29.60 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the MX110 has no recorded FP16 capability. The Quadro's texture rate of 59.20 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 47.36 GPixel/s dwarf the MX110's 16.10 GTexel/s and 8.048 GPixel/s.

The Quadro P1000 is a professional workstation card, as indicated by its Quadro Pascal generation and its predecessor (Quadro Maxwell) and successor (Quadro Volta) in the database. The MX110 is a consumer mobile part in the GeForce MX (1xx) generation. The Quadro also has a wider bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x16 versus x4), which matters for data transfer in compute workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P1000 wins in every performance scenario recorded in the database. Its 68.7% OpenCL lead means it is the clear choice for compute tasks such as OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulation, or data processing. Its 55.9% Vulkan lead makes it the better option for Vulkan-based games or Vulkan compute workloads. The Quadro's 4 GB memory and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth also allow it to handle larger textures and datasets than the MX110's 2 GB and 40.10 GB/s.

The Quadro P1000 is also the winner for any task that benefits from its 47.36 GPixel/s pixel rate, such as high-resolution display output or heavy rasterization. Its 59.20 GTexel/s texture rate supports detailed texture filtering without bottlenecking. The Quadro's 12_1 DirectX feature level means it can run newer DirectX 12 titles with advanced features, while the MX110 is limited to 11_0.

The MX110's only wins are in power and physical integration. Its 30 W TDP is 17 W lower than the Quadro's 47 W. For ultra-portable laptops or fanless designs, that difference can be critical. The MX110's IGP form factor means it can be soldered directly onto a motherboard, whereas the Quadro P1000 requires a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot and a chassis that can accommodate a 150 mm card. The MX110 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, which is sufficient for its bandwidth needs and reduces system complexity.

For users who need a discrete GPU in a device where the Quadro's physical footprint is impossible, the MX110 is the only option. For everyone else, the data is unambiguous: the Quadro P1000 is the faster card by every recorded measure, with margins ranging from 55.9% to 68.7% in compute tests. The MX110's 23rd percentile ranking and its position among low-end rivals (GTX 650, UHD 710, Radeon R5) confirm its status as an entry-level part. The Quadro's 20th percentile ranking is dragged down by legacy DirectX tests, but its G3D score of 4,512 and compute score of 1,891 show it is a capable workstation GPU in modern workloads.