GeForce MX330 vs 8800M GTS

Place in performance ranking	1070	545
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.07	3.33
Architecture	G9x (2007−2010)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	NB8E-GT	N17S-LP / N17S-G3
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	19 November 2007 (16 years ago)	20 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Current price	$110	$1079

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GeForce MX330 has 4657% better value for money than 8800M GTS.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	64	384
CUDA cores	64	no data
Core clock speed	500 MHz	1531 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1594 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	25 Watt (12 - 25 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	16.00	38.26
Floating-point performance	160 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce 8800M GTS and GeForce MX330 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	MXM-HE	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	800 MHz	7000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	51.2 GB/s	48.06 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors

No outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.4
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	1.1	6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

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

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

8800M GTS 0.99

GeForce MX330 6.33
+539%

MX330 outperforms 8800M GTS by 539% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

8800M GTS 382

GeForce MX330 2443
+540%

MX330 outperforms 8800M GTS by 540% in Passmark.

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	3−4 −633%	22 +633%
4K	3−4 −700%	24 +700%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

1−2

−900%

10−11
+900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −850%	19 +850%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −1000%	11 +1000%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −600%	21 +600%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −575%	27 +575%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −675%	31 +675%
Hitman 3	2−3 −700%	16 +700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 −550%	39 +550%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −550%	26 +550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 −600%	14 +600%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −600%	14 +600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −900%	10 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −800%	18 +800%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −850%	19 +850%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Hitman 3	1−2 −1100%	12 +1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −563%	106 +563%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −600%	21 +600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −850%	19 +850%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−11 −650%	75 +650%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −600%	7 +600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	4
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −1100%	12 +1100%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −700%	16 +700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 −700%	16 +700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −1100%	12 +1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 −550%	24−27 +550%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

−800%

9
+800%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	6−7
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	3−4
Far Cry 5	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −1000%	10−12 +1000%
Hitman 3	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	5−6

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

−1000%

10−12
+1000%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn	0−1	4−5
Horizon Zero Dawn	0−1	6−7

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	4−5
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	3−4
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	3−4
Far Cry 5	0−1	3−4
Horizon Zero Dawn	0−1	6−7
Metro Exodus	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

−600%

7−8
+600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −800%	9 +800%
Battlefield 5	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −575%	27 +575%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −700%	8 +700%
Battlefield 5	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −750%	17 +750%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

1−2

−600%

7−8
+600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	1−2
Metro Exodus	0−1	6−7
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	3−4
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	3−4

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	5−6
Hitman 3	0−1	2−3
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	2−3
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	3−4

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	6−7
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	2−3

This is how 8800M GTS and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX330 is 633% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX330 is 700% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.99	6.33
Recency	19 November 2007	20 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	2 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	25 Watt