NVIDIA GeForce MX110 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two cards almost perfectly down the middle, with each claiming one victory. The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 takes the OpenCL workload, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 dominates in Vulkan. This is not a case of one card being universally faster; it is a case of application programming interface preference.

In OpenCL, the MX110 scores 4255 against the P400’s 4249, a razor-thin 0.1% margin. This is effectively a statistical tie, but the recorded data still assigns the win to the MX110. For compute workloads that rely on OpenCL, the MX110 holds a marginal edge, though any real-world difference would be imperceptible.

The Vulkan result tells a completely different story. The P400 scores 5119, while the MX110 manages only 3413. That is a 33.3% gap in favor of the Quadro, a massive swing that dwarfs the OpenCL difference. For Vulkan-based applications, whether gaming, rendering, or compute, the P400 is clearly the stronger performer. The data indicates that if a workload can leverage Vulkan, the P400 is the decisive choice.

Looking at overall average benchmark scores, the P400 sits at 4684, which places it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs. The MX110 averages 3834, landing in the 23rd percentile. The P400’s average is roughly 22% higher, reflecting the weight of its Vulkan advantage. The MX110’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 650 (0.3% ahead) and the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (1.1% ahead), while the P400’s rivals include the Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (0.6% ahead) and the GeForce GTX 970M (1.2% behind). The P400 competes in a higher performance tier despite both cards having identical 30 W TDPs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and manufacturing processes. The MX110 uses the GM108S chip built on Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The P400 uses the GP107 chip on Pascal architecture, built by Samsung on a 14 nm process. This node shrink is significant: the P400 packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, while the MX110 fits 1,020 million transistors into 77 mm². Transistor density jumps from 13.2 million per mm² on the MX110 to 25.0 million per mm² on the P400. The P400 is not just smaller in relative terms; it is denser and more modern.

Both cards feature 256 shading units and 16 texture mapping units, so the core compute layout is identical in those counts. However, the raster operation units differ: the MX110 has 8 ROPs, while the P400 doubles that to 16. This explains the large pixel rate difference. The MX110 delivers 8.048 GPixel/s, whereas the P400 reaches 20.03 GPixel/s. The P400’s texture rate is also higher at 20.03 GTexel/s compared to 16.10 GTexel/s on the MX110, driven by higher clocks.

Clock speeds favor the P400 as well. The Quadro runs at a base of 1228 MHz and boosts to 1252 MHz. The MX110 sits at 978 MHz base and 1006 MHz boost. Those higher clocks, combined with the extra ROPs, push the P400’s FP32 performance to 641.0 GFLOPS, versus 515.1 GFLOPS on the MX110. The P400 even lists a token FP16 rate of 10.02 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio), while the MX110 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory configurations are similar in size and type: both have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. But the effective memory speeds differ. The MX110 runs memory at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective, yielding 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The P400 runs at 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, producing only 32.06 GB/s. So the MX110 actually has 25% more memory bandwidth, a notable advantage for bandwidth-sensitive tasks. The P400 compensates with its superior compute and pixel throughput.

The bus interfaces also separate these cards. The MX110 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the P400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The P400’s wider bus allows for faster data transfer to the host system, which matters for professional workloads. The MX110 is an integrated GPU (IGP) with portable-device-dependent outputs, while the P400 is a single-slot card with 150 mm length, 69 mm height, and three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The P400 also lists a suggested PSU of 200 W, though both cards consume 30 W and require no power connectors.

DirectX support also differs: the MX110 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both offer OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The P400’s higher DirectX feature level and Vulkan performance suggest better modern API readiness.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head table records two tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the MX110 scores 4255 against the P400’s 4249. The delta is 0.1%, favoring the MX110. This is the closest possible result; it is a tie in any practical sense. The P400’s higher clocks and ROP count did not translate into an OpenCL win, likely due to the MX110’s superior memory bandwidth (40.10 GB/s vs 32.06 GB/s) and its simpler architecture that may handle this specific workload efficiently.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the P400 wins decisively with 5119 versus 3413 for the MX110. The delta is -33.3% from the P400’s perspective, meaning the MX110 trails by a third. This is the single largest performance gap in the entire comparison. Vulkan is a low-level API that rewards architectural efficiency, and the Pascal-based P400 clearly benefits from its newer design, higher clocks, and doubled ROPs. The MX110’s Maxwell architecture, despite having more memory bandwidth, cannot keep up.

The average benchmark score for the P400 is 4684, which is 22% above the MX110’s 3834. This average is heavily skewed by the Vulkan result, but it still represents the overall compute capability across the tested workloads. The P400’s percentile rank of 27 versus the MX110’s 23 confirms that the Quadro sits slightly higher in the global performance distribution.

The MX110’s nearest rivals in the database include the GeForce GTX 650 (avg 3823, 0.3% lower) and the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (avg 3792, 1.1% lower). The P400’s rivals include the Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (avg 4657, 0.6% lower) and the GeForce GTX 970M (avg 4628, 1.2% lower). The P400’s competition is faster, confirming its higher tier.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but conditional recommendation. If the target workload runs on Vulkan, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is the superior choice by a wide margin. Its 33.3% Vulkan lead over the MX110 is the most important number in this comparison. The P400 also offers higher FP32 performance (641.0 GFLOPS vs 515.1 GFLOPS), double the pixel rate (20.03 GPixel/s vs 8.048 GPixel/s), and a more modern 14 nm Pascal architecture with better DirectX 12 (12_1) support.

If the workload is OpenCL-only, the MX110 holds a microscopic 0.1% edge, which is negligible in practice. The MX110 does have a bandwidth advantage (40.10 GB/s vs 32.06 GB/s), which could matter for certain memory-bound tasks, but its overall compute is lower. The MX110’s IGP form factor makes it suitable for portable devices, while the P400 is a discrete single-slot card with dedicated display outputs.

For any user prioritizing raw performance, modern API support, or professional rendering with Vulkan, the P400 is the pick. The 27th percentile ranking and the company it keeps (GTX 970M, Radeon RX 9060 XT) confirm it outperforms the MX110. For users locked into OpenCL or needing the higher memory bandwidth in an integrated solution, the MX110 is viable, but the data does not support choosing it for speed. The P400 wins on average score, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32, and Vulkan. The MX110 wins only on memory bandwidth and a statistical tie in OpenCL.

The production status of both is end-of-life, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP. The P400 was released earlier (February 2017) than the MX110 (November 2017), but the P400’s newer architecture and better results make it the stronger product.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 averages 4684, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 averages 3834. The P400 sits in the 27th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the MX110’s 23rd percentile.

Q: How big is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the P400 scores 5119 against the MX110’s 3413, a 33.3% difference in favor of the P400.

Q: Does the MX110 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the MX110 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with 4255 versus the P400’s 4249, a 0.1% margin. It also has higher memory bandwidth at 40.10 GB/s compared to 32.06 GB/s.

Q: What are the architectural differences?

A: The MX110 uses the GM108S chip on Maxwell architecture with a 28 nm TSMC process. The P400 uses the GP107 chip on Pascal architecture with a 14 nm Samsung process. The P400 has 3,300 million transistors on 132 mm², while the MX110 has 1,020 million on 77 mm².

Q: Which card has more ROPs and what does that mean?

A: The P400 has 16 ROPs, double the MX110’s 8. This results in a pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s for the P400 versus 8.048 GPixel/s for the MX110, meaning the P400 can fill pixels much faster.

Q: Do both cards use the same memory configuration?

A: Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. However, the MX110 runs at 5 Gbps effective with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, while the P400 runs at 4 Gbps effective with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX110 | NVIDIA Quadro P400 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 978 MHz | 1228 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1006 MHz | 1252 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 40.10 GB/s | 32.06 GB/s |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.048 GPixel/s | 20.03 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 16.10 GTexel/s | 20.03 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 515.1 GFLOPS | 641.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | None | 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | None | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Dimensions | None | 150 mm (5.9 inches) length, 69 mm (2.7 inches) height |

| Release Date | November 2017 | February 2017 |

| Predecessor | None | Quadro Maxwell |

| Successor | None | Quadro Volta |