NVIDIA GeForce MX110 vs AMD Radeon 520
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce MX110 and AMD Radeon 520 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce MX110
- Videocard is newer: launch date 6 month(s) later
- Around 16% better floating-point performance: 762.6 gflops vs 660 GFLOPs
- Around 67% lower typical power consumption: 30 Watt vs 50 Watt
- Around 11% higher memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 4500 MHz
- Around 64% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1417 vs 865
- Around 86% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2197 vs 1182
- Around 86% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2197 vs 1182
- 2.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3502 vs 1242
- 2.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3502 vs 1242
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 17 November 2017 vs 18 April 2017 |
| Floating-point performance | 762.6 gflops vs 660 GFLOPs |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt vs 50 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz vs 4500 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1417 vs 865 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2197 vs 1182 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2197 vs 1182 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3502 vs 1242 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3502 vs 1242 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 vs 3351 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 vs 3351 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon 520
- Around 7% higher core clock speed: 1030 MHz vs 965 MHz
- Around 4% higher boost clock speed: 1030 MHz vs 993 MHz
- 864.5x more texture fill rate: 20.60 GTexel/s vs 23.83 GTexel / s
- Around 25% higher pipelines: 320 vs 256
- 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
- Around 7% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 203 vs 189
- 6.2x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 26304 vs 4256
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1030 MHz vs 965 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1030 MHz vs 993 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 20.60 GTexel/s vs 23.83 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 320 vs 256 |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 203 vs 189 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 26304 vs 4256 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX110
GPU 2: AMD Radeon 520
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce MX110 | AMD Radeon 520 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1417 | 865 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 189 | 203 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4256 | 26304 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2197 | 1182 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2197 | 1182 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3502 | 1242 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3502 | 1242 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 3351 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 3351 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce MX110 | AMD Radeon 520 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |
| Code name | GM108 | Oland |
| Launch date | 17 November 2017 | 18 April 2017 |
| Place in performance rating | 891 | 1109 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop, Laptop |
| Design | Radeon 500 Series | |
| GCN generation | 1st Gen | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 993 MHz | 1030 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 965 MHz | 1030 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 762.6 gflops | 660 GFLOPs |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 256 | 320 |
| Texture fill rate | 23.83 GTexel / s | 20.60 GTexel/s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Compute units | 5 | |
| Pixel fill rate | 4.10 GP/s | |
| Render output units | 4 | |
| Stream Processors | 320 | |
| Texture Units | 20 | |
| Transistor count | 1,040 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB / s | 48 GB/s |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 4500 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 / DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Verde Drivers | ||
| 4K H264 Decode | ||
| 4K H264 Encode | ||
| AMD Graphics Core Next (GCN) Architecture | ||
| AMD Radeon™ ReLive | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| DualGraphics | ||
| Enduro | ||
| H265/HEVC Decode | ||
| H265/HEVC Encode | ||
| HDMI 4K Support | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| TressFX | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| Video Code Engine (VCE) | ||
