GeForce MX330 vs ATI Radeon IGP 345M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1622665
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data43.24
ArchitectureRage 6 (2000−2007)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameRS200GP108
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date5 October 2002 (23 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 coresno data384
Core clock speed183 MHz1531 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1594 MHz
Number of transistors30 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology180 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data10 Watt
Texture fill rate0.3738.26
Floating-point processing powerno data1.224 TFLOPS
ROPs216
TMUs224
L1 Cacheno data144 KB
L2 Cacheno data512 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).

InterfaceAGP 4xPCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared2 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1502 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data48.06 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.

DirectX7.012 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGL1.44.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-6.1

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

ATI IGP 345M 2
Samples: 21
GeForce MX330 2328
+116300%
Samples: 1534

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 HDno data22
4Kno data23

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Palworld 12−14
+0%
12−14
+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%
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%
Palworld 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 118
+0%
118
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+0%
95−100
+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%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 11
+0%
11
+0%
Palworld 12−14
+0%
12−14
+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%
Palworld 12−14
+0%
12−14
+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 8−9
+0%
8−9
+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%
Palworld 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
Palworld 1−2
+0%
1−2
+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 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Palworld 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Recency 5 October 2002 10 February 2020
Chip lithography 180 nm 14 nm

GeForce MX330 has an age advantage of 17 years, and a 1186% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon IGP 345M and GeForce MX330. We've got no test results to judge.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

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


4 4 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 345M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 2374 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 Radeon IGP 345M or GeForce MX330, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.