GeForce MX330 vs ATI Radeon HD 3200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 3200 with GeForce MX330, including specs and performance data.
MX330 outperforms HD 3200 by a whopping 2690% 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 | 1474 | 666 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 43.17 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | RS780 | GP108 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 March 2008 (18 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 cores | 40 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 494 MHz | 1531 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1594 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 180 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 1.976 | 38.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.03952 TFLOPS | 1.224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 4 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | 10.0 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.0 | 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 | 3
−633%
| 22
+633%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 23 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−933%
|
31
+933%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−337%
|
118
+337%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−683%
|
90−95
+683%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−678%
|
70
+678%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−633%
|
22
+633%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−280%
|
19
+280%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−293%
|
106
+293%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−611%
|
64
+611%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−433%
|
16
+433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−140%
|
12
+140%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−141%
|
65−70
+141%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1800%
|
35−40
+1800%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−21.4%
|
16−18
+21.4%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 34
+0%
|
34
+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%
|
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
| 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%
|
| 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%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| 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%
|
This is how ATI HD 3200 and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX330 is 633% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 1800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX330 performs better in 24 tests (44%)
- there's a draw in 31 tests (56%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.20 | 5.58 |
| Recency | 4 March 2008 | 10 February 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
GeForce MX330 has a 2690% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 364% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 3200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 3200 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce MX330 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
