Radeon HD 8330 vs GeForce 8800M GTX SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8800M GTX SLI with Radeon HD 8330, including specs and performance data.
8800M GTX SLI outperforms HD 8330 by a whopping 197% 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 | 925 | 1221 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.11 | 3.25 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | NB8E-GTX | Kalindi |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 19 November 2007 (17 years ago) | 13 August 2013 (11 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 497 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 1,178 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 3.976 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.1272 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
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 | no data | IGP |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| 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 data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 30−35
+173%
| 11
−173%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+35.7%
|
27−30
−35.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+35.7%
|
27−30
−35.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+35.7%
|
27−30
−35.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| God of War | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how 8800M GTX SLI and HD 8330 compete in popular games:
- 8800M GTX SLI is 173% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the 8800M GTX SLI is 333% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- 8800M GTX SLI is ahead in 31 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.90 | 0.64 |
| Recency | 19 November 2007 | 13 August 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 15 Watt |
8800M GTX SLI has a 196.9% higher aggregate performance score.
HD 8330, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 766.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce 8800M GTX SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8330 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 8800M GTX SLI is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 8330 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
