Radeon R5 M330 vs GeForce GTX 480M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 480M and Radeon R5 M330, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
480M outperforms R5 M330 by a whopping 178% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 765 | 1057 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.07 | 6.14 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | Exo |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 May 2010 (16 years ago) | 5 May 2015 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 352 | 320 |
| Compute units | no data | 5 |
| Core clock speed | 425 MHz | 955 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1030 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 690 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 18.70 | 20.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5984 TFLOPS | 0.6592 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 44 | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 704 KB | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 128 KB |
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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| HD3D | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| DualGraphics | - | + |
| ZeroCore | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | Not Listed |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| Mantle | - | + |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 33
+230%
| 10−12 |
| Full HD | 41
+356%
| 9 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 6−7 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5 |
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4 |
| Fortnite | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11 |
| Valorant | 50−55
+50%
|
35−40 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5 |
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+122%
|
30−35 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+100%
|
18−20 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4 |
| Fortnite | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2 |
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8 |
| Valorant | 50−55
+50%
|
35−40 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+100%
|
18−20 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8 |
| Valorant | 50−55
+50%
|
35−40 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+113%
|
14−16 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+290%
|
10−11 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16 |
| Valorant | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9 |
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3 |
This is how GTX 480M and R5 M330 compete in popular games:
- GTX 480M is 230% faster in 900p
- GTX 480M is 356% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 480M is 1200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 480M surpassed R5 M330 in all 45 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.95 | 1.42 |
| Recency | 25 May 2010 | 5 May 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 18 Watt |
GTX 480M has a 178% higher aggregate performance score.
R5 M330, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 30% more advanced lithography process, and 82% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 480M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M330 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
