NVIDIA GeForce MX110 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and NVIDIA GeForce MX110 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on a 28 nm TSMC process, but they target different eras and priorities. The Quadro K2100M is a Kepler-based professional mobile workstation part from mid-2013, while the MX110 is a Maxwell-based entry-level consumer laptop GPU from late 2017. Benchmark data from the FACT PACK shows the Quadro K2100M as the stronger performer, winning both head-to-head tests, yet the MX110 counters with significantly lower power consumption and a more modern feature set. This analysis breaks down the architectural, specification, and performance differences to help determine which GPU fits a given use case.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is the choice for users prioritizing raw compute performance over efficiency. It wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with a 7.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a substantial 27.2% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 4151 places it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, slightly ahead of the MX110's 3834 average score and 23rd percentile ranking. The K2100M's nearest rival data reinforces its position—it sits within 1.9% of the Intel HD Graphics 630 and within 1.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB, showing it holds its own against a wide range of integrated and discrete options.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110, conversely, is for users who need a basic discrete GPU with minimal power draw. Its 30 W TDP is nearly half of the K2100M's 55 W, making it far better suited for thin-and-light laptops where heat and battery life are critical. Its 256 shading units and 16 texture mapping units are fewer than the K2100M's 576 and 48, respectively, but its higher clock speeds (978 MHz base, 1006 MHz boost versus a flat 667 MHz) partially compensate in lighter workloads. However, the benchmark results indicate that the MX110's architectural efficiency does not overcome the K2100M's sheer hardware advantage. The K2100M is the pick for compute-heavy tasks; the MX110 is the pick for basic acceleration in a power-constrained chassis.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent two distinct NVIDIA architectures. The Quadro K2100M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK106S chip, while the MX110 uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip. This is a fundamental generational split: Kepler was designed for professional workloads and higher throughput, whereas Maxwell focused on performance-per-watt in entry-level consumer parts.

The process node is identical at 28 nm, and both are fabricated by TSMC. However, the transistor counts diverge sharply. The K2100M packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The MX110 uses only 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving it a higher density of 13.2M per mm². This means the MX110 is a much smaller, more tightly packed chip, but the K2100M has over twice the raw transistor budget to work with.

Feature support also differs in the API stack. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Vulkan versions differ: the K2100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the MX110 supports Vulkan 1.4. This newer Vulkan implementation on the MX110 does not translate into a benchmark win, as the K2100M scores 27.2% higher in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both lack FP16 support, so they are purely FP32-oriented parts.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins both head-to-head tests. It scores 4587 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 4255 for the MX110 (a 7.8% lead), and 4343 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 3413 (a 27.2% lead).

Q: Does the MX110 have any advantage in power consumption?

A: Yes. The MX110 has a TDP of 30 W, while the K2100M has a TDP of 55 W. This makes the MX110 significantly more suitable for power-constrained laptops.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the K2100M uses a 128-bit bus with 48.13 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX110 uses a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The K2100M has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. The MX110 has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the data. The K2100M was released in 2013, and the MX110 was released in 2017.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The K2100M has an average benchmark score of 4151, placing it in the 25th percentile. The MX110 has an average score of 3834, placing it in the 23rd percentile.

Specification Differences

The specification tables show a wide gulf in core hardware, with only a few commonalities.

• Process Node: Both use 28 nm, but the transistor density differs: 11.5M / mm² for the K2100M versus 13.2M / mm² for the MX110.
• Transistors: 2,540 million for the K2100M versus 1,020 million for the MX110.
• Die Size: 221 mm² for the K2100M versus 77 mm² for the MX110.
• Base Clock: 667 MHz for the K2100M versus 978 MHz for the MX110.
• Boost Clock: 667 MHz for the K2100M versus 1006 MHz for the MX110.
• Memory Clock: 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective) for the K2100M versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the MX110.
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit for the K2100M versus 64 bit for the MX110.
• Memory Bandwidth: 48.13 GB/s for the K2100M versus 40.10 GB/s for the MX110.
• Shading Units: 576 for the K2100M versus 256 for the MX110.
• Texture Mapping Units: 48 for the K2100M versus 16 for the MX110.
• Render Output Units: 16 for the K2100M versus 8 for the MX110.
• Pixel Rate: 8.004 GPixel/s for the K2100M versus 8.048 GPixel/s for the MX110.
• Texture Rate: 32.02 GTexel/s for the K2100M versus 16.10 GTexel/s for the MX110.
• FP32 Performance: 768.4 GFLOPS for the K2100M versus 515.1 GFLOPS for the MX110.
• TDP: 55 W for the K2100M versus 30 W for the MX110.
• Slot Width: MXM Module for the K2100M versus IGP for the MX110.
• Bus Interface: MXM-A (3.0) for the K2100M versus PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX110.
• Vulkan Version: 1.2.175 for the K2100M versus 1.4 for the MX110.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data provides a definitive picture of performance. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K2100M scores 4587 against the MX110's 4255. This 7.8% delta is a solid win, but not a blowout. The K2100M's advantage here comes from its 576 shading units and 48 TMUs, which provide more parallel throughput for compute tasks. The MX110's higher clock speeds (978 MHz base versus 667 MHz) help it stay competitive, but the K2100M's 768.4 GFLOPS FP32 output versus 515.1 GFLOPS gives it a decisive edge in raw math.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is where the K2100M truly dominates. It scores 4343 against the MX110's 3413, a 27.2% delta. This is a substantial gap that cannot be explained by clock speeds alone. The K2100M's wider 128-bit memory bus (48.13 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s) and higher texture rate (32.02 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s) likely contribute to this performance disparity, as Vulkan workloads often stress memory bandwidth and texture fetching. Despite the MX110's newer Vulkan 1.4 API support versus the K2100M's 1.2.175, the older Kepler GPU wins decisively in this workload.

The K2100M wins both head-to-head matchups, securing 2 wins against 0 for the MX110. Its average benchmark score of 4151 also exceeds the MX110's 3834 by roughly 8.3%, reinforcing the consistency of its performance advantage across different test types.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins in every measurable performance category. It is the superior choice for compute-heavy applications, including OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulation, and any workload that leverages Vulkan for gaming or professional visualization. Its 576 shading units and 48 TMUs provide a 2.25x and 3x advantage over the MX110, respectively, which translates directly to higher throughput in shader-bound and texture-bound tasks. The 128-bit memory bus and 48.13 GB/s bandwidth also give it a clear edge in memory-intensive scenarios, such as high-resolution texture streaming or large dataset processing. For users who have access to a machine with the MXM-A (3.0) slot and can accommodate the 55 W TDP, the K2100M is the unequivocal performance pick.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 wins in efficiency and integration. Its 30 W TDP is 25 W lower than the K2100M, making it a far better fit for ultraportable laptops where cooling and battery life are paramount. The MX110's IGP slot width and PCIe 3.0 x4 interface indicate it is designed to be soldered directly onto the motherboard, whereas the K2100M requires a removable MXM module. For basic tasks like video playback, light photo editing, or casual older games, the MX110's higher clock speeds (978 MHz base, 1006 MHz boost) and newer Vulkan 1.4 API support make it a more modern, power-conscious choice. It also has a higher transistor density (13.2M / mm² versus 11.5M / mm²), suggesting a more efficient use of silicon for its intended workload. Users who prioritize battery life and a slim chassis over raw compute should choose the MX110.