GeForce MX330 vs Quadro FX 2500M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 2500M with GeForce MX330, including specs and performance data.
MX330 outperforms 2500M by a whopping 975% 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 | 1301 | 665 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.89 | 43.24 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | G71 | GP108 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 September 2005 (20 years ago) | 10 February 2020 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
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 | 32 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1531 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 500 MHz | 1594 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 278 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 38.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 144 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 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 |
| Interface | MXM-III | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 600 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 48.06 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 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 | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
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.
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 | 2−3
−1000%
| 22
+1000%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−1050%
| 23
+1050%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 50.00 | no data |
| 4K | 50.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−675%
|
31
+675%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−337%
|
118
+337%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−459%
|
95−100
+459%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−536%
|
70
+536%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−450%
|
22
+450%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 11 |
| Palworld | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−217%
|
19
+217%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−293%
|
106
+293%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−482%
|
64
+482%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−300%
|
16
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−100%
|
12
+100%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−141%
|
65−70
+141%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Palworld | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−2050%
|
40−45
+2050%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−533%
|
35−40
+533%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Palworld | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
4K
High
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+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%
|
4K
Epic
| Palworld | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how FX 2500M and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX330 is 1000% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX330 is 1050% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 2050% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX330 performs better in 32 tests (53%)
- there's a draw in 28 tests (47%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.52 | 5.59 |
| Recency | 29 September 2005 | 10 February 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 10 Watt |
GeForce MX330 has a 975% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 543% more advanced lithography process, and 350% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2500M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 2500M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce MX330 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
