GeForce MX330 vs GTX 780M Mac Edition

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
670MX 675MX 675MX Mac Edition 680M 680MX Mac Edition 775M Mac Edition 780M 780M Mac Edition 870M 880M
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
MX110 MX130 MX150 MX230 MX250 MX330 MX350 MX450 MX450 30.5W 8Gbps MX550 MX570 MX570 A

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition and GeForce MX330, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 780M Mac Edition
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 122 Watt
6.20
+11.3%

780M Mac Edition outperforms MX330 by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
GTX 780M Mac Edition GTX 780M Mac Edition
GeForce MX330 GeForce MX330

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking640667
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.9343.09
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGK104GP108
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date8 November 2013 (12 years ago)10 February 2020 (6 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 cores1536384
Core clock speed771 MHz1531 MHz
Boost clock speed797 MHz1594 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)122 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate102.038.26
Floating-point processing power2.448 TFLOPS1.224 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs12824
L1 Cache128 KB144 KB
L2 Cache512 KB512 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).

InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/s48.06 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA3.06.1

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 HD24−27
+9.1%
22
−9.1%
4K24−27
+4.3%
23
−4.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 29
+0%
29
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Fortnite 63
+0%
63
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 31
+0%
31
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 118
+0%
118
+0%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Dota 2 70
+0%
70
+0%
Far Cry 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
Fortnite 34
+0%
34
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 22
+0%
22
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 11
+0%
11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+0%
19
+0%
Valorant 106
+0%
106
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Dota 2 64
+0%
64
+0%
Far Cry 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16
+0%
16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
+0%
12
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 21
+0%
21
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 24
+0%
24
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how GTX 780M Mac Edition and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 780M Mac Edition is 9% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 780M Mac Edition is 4% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 6.20 5.57
Recency 8 November 2013 10 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 122 Watt 10 Watt

GTX 780M Mac Edition has a 11% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX330, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 1120% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX330 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.

GTX 780M Mac Edition GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition
vs
GTX 950M GeForce GTX 950M
GeForce MX330 GeForce MX330
vs
R9 M470 Radeon R9 M470
GTX 780M Mac Edition GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition
vs
R9 M380 Radeon R9 M380
GT 820M NVIDIA GT 820M
vs
HD 8330E 8330E
GT 750M Mac Edition NVIDIA GT 750M Mac Edition
vs
STG-2000 2000
GT 755M Mac Edition NVIDIA GT 755M Mac Edition
vs
RX 550 512SP 550 512SP
GTX 775M Mac Edition NVIDIA GTX 775M Mac Edition
vs
P102-100 100
GTX 775M Mac Edition NVIDIA GTX 775M Mac Edition
vs
RX 570X Mobile 570X Mobile
GT 740A NVIDIA GT 740A
vs
ATI Mobility 9700 SE 9700 SE
GT 740A NVIDIA GT 740A
vs
RX 9060 XT 16 GB 9060 XT 16 GB
GeForce 720M GeForce 720M
vs
ATI 9550 XT 9550 XT
GeForce 720M GeForce 720M
vs
ATI X800 PRO AGP X800 PRO AGP
GTX 660M Mac Edition GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition
vs
GTX 950 Low Power GeForce GTX 950 Low Power

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.6 8 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 2380 votes

Rate GeForce MX330 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition or GeForce MX330, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.