GeForce MX110 vs GTX 980

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 980 with GeForce MX110, including specs and performance data.

GTX 980
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 165 Watt
28.80
+672%

GTX 980 outperforms GeForce MX110 by a whopping 672% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking179670
Place by popularitynot in top-10084
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.780.88
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)Maxwell (2014−2018)
GPU code nameGM204N16V-GMR1
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date19 September 2014 (9 years ago)1 January 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 no data
Current price$339 (0.6x MSRP)$1057

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 980 has 1011% 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 cores2048256
CUDA cores2048no data
Core clock speed1064 MHz965 MHz
Boost clock speed1216 MHz993 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)165 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate144 billion/sec23.83
Floating-point performance4,981 gflops762.6 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 980 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.

Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length10.5" (26.7 cm)no data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Recommended system power (PSU)500 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinsNone
SLI options+no data

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 typeGDDR5DDR3, GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s1800 MHz
Memory bandwidth224 GB/s40.1 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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2No outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI+no data
HDCP+no data
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC support+no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

GameStream+no data
GeForce ShadowPlay+no data
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+no data
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+no data
Optimus++
BatteryBoost+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.126
CUDA++

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.

GTX 980 28.80
+672%
GeForce MX110 3.73

GTX 980 outperforms MX110 by 672% 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%

GTX 980 11123
+672%
GeForce MX110 1440

GTX 980 outperforms MX110 by 672% in Passmark.

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: 17%

GTX 980 17605
+730%
GeForce MX110 2121

GTX 980 outperforms MX110 by 730% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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: 17%

GTX 980 37997
+316%
GeForce MX110 9124

GTX 980 outperforms MX110 by 316% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 980 12938
+655%
GeForce MX110 1714

GTX 980 outperforms MX110 by 655% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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: 14%

GTX 980 85374
+658%
GeForce MX110 11266

GTX 980 outperforms MX110 by 658% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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%

GTX 980 33572
+696%
GeForce MX110 4219

GTX 980 outperforms MX110 by 696% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

GTX 980 323076
+160%
GeForce MX110 124036

GTX 980 outperforms MX110 by 160% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

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%

GTX 980 40029
+1086%
GeForce MX110 3374

GTX 980 outperforms MX110 by 1086% 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%

GTX 980 29546
+539%
GeForce MX110 4625

GTX 980 outperforms MX110 by 539% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 980 130
+495%
GeForce MX110 22

GTX 980 outperforms MX110 by 495% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.

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 HD95
+400%
19
−400%
1440p47
+683%
6−7
−683%
4K39
+680%
5−6
−680%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 45−50 no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 69 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 50−55 no data
Battlefield 5 86 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 55−60 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50 no data
Far Cry 5 84 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 77 no data
Forza Horizon 4 90 no data
Hitman 3 55−60 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120 no data
Metro Exodus 90−95 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 100−110 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80 no data

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 58 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 50−55 no data
Battlefield 5 74 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 55−60 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50 no data
Far Cry 5 69 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 64 no data
Forza Horizon 4 230 no data
Hitman 3 55−60 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120 no data
Metro Exodus 90−95 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 100−110 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 85 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80 no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 50−55 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 55−60 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50 no data
Far Cry 5 50 no data
Forza Horizon 4 59 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 100−110 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80 no data

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80 no data

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 47 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65 no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22 no data
Far Cry 5 48 no data
Forza Horizon 4 48 no data
Hitman 3 35−40 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65 no data
Metro Exodus 55−60
+686%
7−8
−686%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
+713%
8−9
−713%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 21−24 no data

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50 no data

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 22 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 24 no data
Hitman 3 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 17 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+867%
3−4
−867%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9 no data
Far Cry 5 16 no data
Forza Horizon 4 34 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35 no data
Metro Exodus 27−30 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 12−14 no data

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27 no data

This is how GTX 980 and GeForce MX110 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 980 is 400% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 980 is 683% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 980 is 680% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 28.80 3.73
Recency 19 September 2014 1 January 2018
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 165 Watt 30 Watt

The GeForce GTX 980 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX110 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 is a desktop 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.

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 GTX 980
GeForce GTX 980
NVIDIA GeForce MX110
GeForce MX110

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.


4.3 1314 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 980 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 2151 vote

Rate GeForce MX110 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.