NVIDIA GeForce MX110 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce MX110 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A 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) 8 month(s) later
- Around 6% higher core clock speed: 965 MHz vs 914 MHz
- 2.5x lower typical power consumption: 30 Watt vs 75 Watt
- Around 25% higher memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 4000 MHz
- Around 11% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2197 vs 1973
- Around 11% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2197 vs 1973
- Around 60% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3502 vs 2188
- Around 60% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3502 vs 2188
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3352 vs 3289
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3352 vs 3289
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 17 November 2017 vs 13 March 2015 |
| Core clock speed | 965 MHz vs 914 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz vs 4000 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2197 vs 1973 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2197 vs 1973 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3502 vs 2188 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3502 vs 2188 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 vs 3289 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 vs 3289 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A
- Around 67% higher texture fill rate: 39.72 GTexel / s vs 23.83 GTexel / s
- 2.5x more pipelines: 640 vs 256
- Around 67% better floating-point performance: 1,271 gflops vs 762.6 gflops
- Around 80% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2605 vs 1446
- Around 39% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 264 vs 190
- 2.5x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 10348 vs 4212
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 39.72 GTexel / s vs 23.83 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 640 vs 256 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,271 gflops vs 762.6 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2605 vs 1446 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 264 vs 190 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10348 vs 4212 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX110
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A
| 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 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1446 | 2605 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 190 | 264 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4212 | 10348 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2197 | 1973 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2197 | 1973 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3502 | 2188 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3502 | 2188 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 3289 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 3289 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce MX110 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Maxwell |
| Code name | GM108 | GM107 |
| Launch date | 17 November 2017 | 13 March 2015 |
| Place in performance rating | 904 | 906 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 993 MHz | 993 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 965 MHz | 914 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 762.6 gflops | 1,271 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 256 | 640 |
| Texture fill rate | 23.83 GTexel / s | 39.72 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,870 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB / s | 64 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 4000 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 / DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Verde Drivers | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce MX110 with others
NVIDIAGeForce MX110 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 2600 XT
NVIDIAGeForce MX110 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 7150M + nForce 630M
NVIDIAGeForce MX110 vs
ATIRadeon HD 4200
NVIDIAGeForce MX110 vs
AMDFirePro W600
NVIDIAGeForce MX110 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950A
NVIDIAGeForce MX110 vs
NVIDIAGeForce MX150
