GeForce MX110 vs Quadro 4000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 4000M with GeForce MX110, including specs and performance data.
GeForce MX110 outperforms Quadro 4000M by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 698 | 669 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 84 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.99 | 0.87 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | Fermi | N16V-GMR1 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 January 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | no data |
| Current price | $118 (0.3x MSRP) | $1057 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro 4000M has 14% 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 | 336 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 965 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 993 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 26.60 | 23.83 |
| Floating-point performance | 638.4 gflops | 762.6 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro 4000M 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 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3, GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 40.1 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 Connectors | No outputs | 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 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | + |
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 outperforms Quadro 4000M by 11% 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%
GeForce MX110 outperforms Quadro 4000M by 11% 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%
GeForce MX110 outperforms Quadro 4000M by 1% 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%
Quadro 4000M outperforms GeForce MX110 by 18% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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 4000M outperforms GeForce MX110 by 22% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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 | 71
+274%
| 19
−274%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9
+28.6%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10
+42.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16
+6.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
+17.6%
|
17
−17.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−62.5%
|
13
+62.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8
+14.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9
+12.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+60%
|
5
−60%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how Quadro 4000M and GeForce MX110 compete in popular games:
- Quadro 4000M is 274% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 4000M is 60% faster.
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX110 is 550% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro 4000M is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
- GeForce MX110 is ahead in 43 tests (66%)
- there's a draw in 19 tests (29%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.37 | 3.73 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 1 January 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 30 Watt |
The GeForce MX110 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce MX110 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
