Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
MX110 vs GTX 660M
Price now
276$
Games supported
61%
- Interface MXM-B (3.0)
- Core clock speed 835 MHz
- Max video memory 2048 MB
- Memory type GDDR5
- Memory clock speed 2000
- Maximum resolution
- Interface PCIe 3.0 x16
- Core clock speed 965
- Max video memory 2 GB
- Memory type DDR3, GDDR5
- Memory clock speed 1800
- Maximum resolution
Price now
1057$
Games supported
61%
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance rating | 618 | 614 |
| Place by popularity | no data | 72 |
| Value for money | 0.57 | 1.22 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | N13E-GE | N16V-GMR1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (10 years old) | 1 January 2018 (5 years old) |
| Current price | $276 | $1057 |
Value for money
Technical specs
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 | 384 | 256 |
| CUDA cores | 384 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 835 MHz | 965 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | 993 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Thermal design power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.4 billion/sec | 23.83 |
| Floating-point performance | 729.6 gflops | 762.6 gflops |
Dimensions and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 660M and GeForce MX110 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3, GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.0 GB/s | 40.1 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | No outputs | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | + |
API support
APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | + |
Benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.
Overall score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. 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.
- Passmark
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
- 3DMark Fire Strike Score
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
- GeekBench 5 OpenCL
- GeekBench 5 Vulkan
- GeekBench 5 CUDA
Passmark
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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: 24%
GeForce MX110 outperforms GeForce GTX 660M by 2% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
GeForce GTX 660M outperforms GeForce MX110 by 20% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
GeForce GTX 660M outperforms GeForce MX110 by 12% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
GeForce GTX 660M outperforms GeForce MX110 by 14% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Score
Benchmark coverage: 13%
GeForce GTX 660M outperforms GeForce MX110 by 4% in 3DMark Fire Strike Score.
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 seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
GeForce GTX 660M outperforms GeForce MX110 by 2% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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: 8%
GeForce MX110 outperforms GeForce GTX 660M by 11% 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%
GeForce MX110 outperforms GeForce GTX 660M by 17% 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%
GeForce MX110 outperforms GeForce GTX 660M by 59% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
Mining hashrates
Cryptocurrency mining performance of GeForce GTX 660M and GeForce MX110. Usually measured in megahashes per second.
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 36 Mh/s | no data |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 30 | no data |
| Full HD | 35
+94.4%
| 18
−94.4%
|
| 1200p | 38 | no data |
Popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9
+28.6%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−40%
|
14
+40%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+40%
|
10
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10
+42.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16
+45.5%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−75%
|
7
+75%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7
−14.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8
−37.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−20%
|
12
+20%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9
+28.6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12
+9.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+200%
|
2
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9
+12.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8
+14.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+60%
|
5
−60%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance rating | 3.62 | 3.69 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 1 January 2018 |
| Memory bus width | 128 | 64 |
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 256 |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 | 40.1 |
| Thermal design power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 30 Watt |
Technical City couldn't decide between
and
The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Competitors of GeForce GTX 660M by AMD
We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce GTX 660M from AMD is Radeon 540X, which is nearly equal in speed and higher by 1 position in our rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GTX 660M:
Competitors of GeForce MX110 by AMD
We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce MX110 from AMD is Radeon R9 M370X, which is nearly equal in speed and higher by 1 position in our rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce MX110:
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
