Quadro FX 2800M vs GeForce MX110

Place in performance ranking	706	1091
Place by popularity	91	not in top-100
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2018)	G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code name	N16V-GMR1	NB10-GLM3
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 January 2018 (6 years ago)	1 December 2009 (14 years ago)

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	256	96
Core clock speed	965 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	993 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	23.83	28.80
Floating-point performance	0.7626 gflops	0.288 gflops

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 size	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	None	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 type	DDR3, GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1800 MHz	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	40.1 GB/s	64 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 Connectors

No 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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
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.

GeForce MX110 3.72
+244%

FX 2800M 1.08

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.

GeForce MX110 1435
+246%

FX 2800M 415

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
+57.8%

FX 2800M 5783

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

−72.2%

31
+72.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

7−8
+133%

3−4

−133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9 +80%	5−6 −80%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
Battlefield 5	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8 +100%	4−5 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	10 +900%	1−2 −900%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24	0−1
Hitman 3	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +100%	12−14 −100%
Metro Exodus	13 +333%	3−4 −333%
Red Dead Redemption 2	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +129%	7−8 −129%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +31.3%	30−35 −31.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12 +140%	5−6 −140%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
Battlefield 5	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	8 +700%	1−2 −700%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24	0−1
Hitman 3	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +100%	12−14 −100%
Metro Exodus	5 +400%	1−2 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +36.4%	10−12 −36.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +31.3%	30−35 −31.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	6 +500%	1−2 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24	0−1
Hitman 3	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +100%	12−14 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5 −120%	10−12 +120%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +31.3%	30−35 −31.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+800%

1−2

−800%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+75%

4−5

−75%

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 +200%	1−2 −200%
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
+150%

2−3

−150%

This is how GeForce MX110 and FX 2800M compete in popular games:

FX 2800M is 72% faster in 1080p

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

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX110 is 1200% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 2800M is 120% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX110 is ahead in 42 tests (98%)
FX 2800M is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.72	1.08
Recency	1 January 2018	1 December 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	75 Watt

GeForce MX110 has a 244.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX110 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2800M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX110 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 2800M is a mobile workstation one.

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