ATI Radeon X1650 PRO vs GeForce MX110

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX110 with Radeon X1650 PRO, including specs and performance data.

GeForce MX110
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 30 Watt
3.71
+1586%

MX110 outperforms ATI X1650 PRO by a whopping 1586% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7101374
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency8.470.34
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Ultra-Threaded SE (2005−2007)
GPU code nameGM108SRV530
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date17 November 2017 (7 years ago)1 February 2007 (17 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 cores256no data
Core clock speed978 MHz600 MHz
Boost clock speed1006 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,020 million157 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt44 Watt
Texture fill rate16.102.400
Floating-point processing power0.5151 TFLOPSno data
ROPs84
TMUs164

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x4PCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB256 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth40.1 GB/s22.4 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

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)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.7 (5.1)3.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL3.0N/A
Vulkan1.3N/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. 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
+1586%
ATI X1650 PRO 0.22

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 1431
+1604%
ATI X1650 PRO 84

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
+1600%
1−2
−1600%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 10 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Hitman 3 9−10 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Metro Exodus 13 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 13 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 8 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Hitman 3 9−10 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Metro Exodus 5 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Hitman 3 9−10 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6 0−1

This is how GeForce MX110 and ATI X1650 PRO compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX110 is 1600% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.71 0.22
Recency 17 November 2017 1 February 2007
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 44 Watt

GeForce MX110 has a 1586.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 46.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX110 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 PRO in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX110 is a notebook card while Radeon X1650 PRO is a desktop one.


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
ATI Radeon X1650 PRO
Radeon X1650 PRO

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 2282 votes

Rate GeForce MX110 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 69 votes

Rate Radeon X1650 PRO 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.