GeForce 9600 GSO vs MX110
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX110 with GeForce 9600 GSO, including specs and performance data.
MX110 outperforms 9600 GSO by a whopping 336% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 722 | 1148 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.09 |
| Power efficiency | 8.43 | 0.69 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GM108S | G92 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 November 2017 (7 years ago) | 28 April 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $49.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 256 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 978 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1006 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,020 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 105 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 16.10 | 26.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5151 TFLOPS | 0.264 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 12 |
| TMUs | 16 | 48 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | 2-way |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 384 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | Dual Link DVIHDTV |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 (5.1) | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
- Passmark
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 18
+350%
| 4−5
−350%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 12.50 |
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 30
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45
+350%
|
10−11
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 36
+350%
|
8−9
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Fortnite | 15
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 33
+371%
|
7−8
−371%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+367%
|
6−7
−367%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Atomic Heart | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
This is how GeForce MX110 and 9600 GSO compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX110 is 350% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.18 | 0.73 |
| Recency | 17 November 2017 | 28 April 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 384 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 105 Watt |
GeForce MX110 has a 335.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX110 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600 GSO in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX110 is a notebook card while GeForce 9600 GSO is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
