NVIDIA GeForce MX110 vs AMD Radeon R5 340 OEM
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce MX110 and AMD Radeon R5 340 OEM 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 2 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- Around 32% higher core clock speed: 965 MHz vs 730 MHz
- Around 27% higher boost clock speed: 993 MHz vs 780 MHz
- Around 27% higher texture fill rate: 23.83 GTexel / s vs 18.72 GTexel / s
- Around 27% better floating-point performance: 762.6 gflops vs 599.0 gflops
- 2.2x lower typical power consumption: 30 Watt vs 65 Watt
- Around 9% higher memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 4600 MHz
- Around 52% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1417 vs 935
- Around 14% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2197 vs 1935
- Around 14% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2197 vs 1935
- Around 47% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3502 vs 2380
- Around 47% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3502 vs 2380
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 17 November 2017 vs 5 May 2015 |
| Core clock speed | 965 MHz vs 730 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 993 MHz vs 780 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 23.83 GTexel / s vs 18.72 GTexel / s |
| Floating-point performance | 762.6 gflops vs 599.0 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt vs 65 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz vs 4600 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1417 vs 935 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2197 vs 1935 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2197 vs 1935 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3502 vs 2380 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3502 vs 2380 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R5 340 OEM
- Around 50% higher pipelines: 384 vs 256
- Around 79% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 338 vs 189
- Around 32% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5635 vs 4256
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 256 |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 338 vs 189 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5635 vs 4256 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 vs 3352 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 vs 3352 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX110
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R5 340 OEM
| 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 R5 340 OEM |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1417 | 935 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 189 | 338 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4256 | 5635 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2197 | 1935 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2197 | 1935 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3502 | 2380 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3502 | 2380 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 3354 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 3354 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce MX110 | AMD Radeon R5 340 OEM | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |
| Code name | GM108 | Oland |
| Launch date | 17 November 2017 | 5 May 2015 |
| Place in performance rating | 891 | 892 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 993 MHz | 780 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 965 MHz | 730 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 762.6 gflops | 599.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 256 | 384 |
| Texture fill rate | 23.83 GTexel / s | 18.72 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,040 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x 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) | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB / s | 73.6 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 4600 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 / DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Verde Drivers | ||
