GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs MX110

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX110 and GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce MX110
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 30 Watt
3.71

GTX 1650 Max-Q outperforms MX110 by a whopping 332% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking708334
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency8.6237.22
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGM108STU117
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date17 November 2017 (7 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)

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 cores2561024
Core clock speed978 MHz930 MHz
Boost clock speed1006 MHz1125 MHz
Number of transistors1,020 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate16.1072.00
Floating-point processing power0.5151 TFLOPS2.304 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs1664

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x4PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1751 MHz
Memory bandwidth40.1 GB/s112.1 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.7 (5.1)6.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.01.2
Vulkan1.31.2.140
CUDA+7.5

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce MX110 3.71
GTX 1650 Max-Q 16.01
+332%

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.

GeForce MX110 1433
GTX 1650 Max-Q 6176
+331%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GeForce MX110 2121
GTX 1650 Max-Q 11083
+423%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GeForce MX110 9124
GTX 1650 Max-Q 30957
+239%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GeForce MX110 1714
GTX 1650 Max-Q 7779
+354%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GeForce MX110 11266
GTX 1650 Max-Q 45244
+302%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GeForce MX110 124036
GTX 1650 Max-Q 373879
+201%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GeForce MX110 451
GTX 1650 Max-Q 3016
+569%

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 HD17
−229%
56
+229%
1440p6−7
−400%
30
+400%
4K3−4
−467%
17
+467%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−257%
24−27
+257%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9
−444%
49
+444%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−767%
24−27
+767%
Battlefield 5 8−9
−688%
63
+688%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8
−425%
42
+425%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−257%
24−27
+257%
Far Cry 5 10
−380%
48
+380%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
−490%
59
+490%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−786%
195
+786%
Hitman 3 9−10
−244%
30−35
+244%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−208%
80−85
+208%
Metro Exodus 13
−446%
71
+446%
Red Dead Redemption 2 13
−315%
54
+315%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
−225%
50−55
+225%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−92.9%
80−85
+92.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12
−475%
69
+475%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−767%
24−27
+767%
Battlefield 5 8−9
−588%
55
+588%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−400%
40
+400%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−257%
24−27
+257%
Far Cry 5 8
−375%
38
+375%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
−310%
41
+310%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−714%
179
+714%
Hitman 3 9−10
−244%
30−35
+244%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−208%
80−85
+208%
Metro Exodus 5
−1060%
58
+1060%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−400%
45
+400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−271%
50−55
+271%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−153%
35−40
+153%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−92.9%
80−85
+92.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
−81.8%
20
+81.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−767%
24−27
+767%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−213%
25
+213%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−257%
24−27
+257%
Far Cry 5 6
−333%
26
+333%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−150%
55
+150%
Hitman 3 9−10
−244%
30−35
+244%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−208%
80−85
+208%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−271%
50−55
+271%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5
−500%
30
+500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−92.9%
80−85
+92.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−367%
42
+367%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
−371%
33
+371%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−333%
26
+333%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−467%
17
+467%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−467%
16−18
+467%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−375%
19
+375%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−4033%
124
+4033%
Hitman 3 8−9
−138%
18−20
+138%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
−267%
30−35
+267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−467%
16−18
+467%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21−24
−326%
95−100
+326%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−271%
24−27
+271%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−450%
11
+450%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−550%
13
+550%
Metro Exodus 0−1 22

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−167%
8
+167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 3−4
Far Cry 5 2−3
−350%
9
+350%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−1000%
21−24
+1000%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−160%
13
+160%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 32
+0%
32
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+0%
18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

This is how GeForce MX110 and GTX 1650 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 229% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 400% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 467% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 Max-Q is 4033% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is ahead in 63 tests (90%)
  • there's a draw in 7 tests (10%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.71 16.01
Recency 17 November 2017 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm

GTX 1650 Max-Q has a 331.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX110 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce MX110
GeForce MX110
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 2264 votes

Rate GeForce MX110 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 617 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.