GeForce MX110 vs Quadro RTX 4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX 4000 with GeForce MX110, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4000 outperforms GeForce MX110 by a whopping 969% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 97 | 669 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 84 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 28.79 | 0.87 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2021) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | N16V-GMR1 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 November 2018 (5 years ago) | 1 January 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $899 | no data |
| Current price | $974 (1.1x MSRP) | $1057 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 4000 has 3209% better value for money than GeForce MX110.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2304 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 1005 MHz | 965 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1545 MHz | 993 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 222.5 | 23.83 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 762.6 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro RTX 4000 and GeForce MX110 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | GDDR6 | DDR3, GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 13000 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 416.0 GB/s | 40.1 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Quadro RTX 4000 outperforms GeForce MX110 by 969% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro RTX 4000 outperforms GeForce MX110 by 969% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
Quadro RTX 4000 outperforms GeForce MX110 by 1933% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Quadro RTX 4000 outperforms GeForce MX110 by 2281% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
Quadro RTX 4000 outperforms GeForce MX110 by 1938% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
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 | 200−210
+953%
| 19
−953%
|
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 | 1−2 | 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 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 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 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 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 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
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 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7 | 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 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
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 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 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 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
This is how RTX 4000 and GeForce MX110 compete in popular games:
- RTX 4000 is 953% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.86 | 3.73 |
| Recency | 13 November 2018 | 1 January 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 30 Watt |
The Quadro RTX 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX110 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro RTX 4000 is a workstation card while GeForce MX110 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
