GeForce GT 330M vs 930M

Place in the ranking	820	1219
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	5.49	1.68
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GM108	GT216
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	13 March 2015 (9 years ago)	10 January 2010 (15 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	384	48
Core clock speed	549 MHz	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	549 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	23 Watt
Texture fill rate	13.18	10.00
Floating-point processing power	0.4216 TFLOPS	0.06528 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	182
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	24	16

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	no data	medium sized
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	None	None
SLI options	-	+

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	DDR3	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	25.28 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	Portable Device Dependent	HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPort
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

GPU Boost	2.0	no data
Optimus	+	-
GameWorks	+	-
Power management	no data	8.0

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.7 (5.1)	4.1
OpenGL	4.5	2.1
OpenCL	3.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.3	N/A
CUDA	+	+

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. 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.

GeForce 930M 2.53
+369%

GT 330M 0.54

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.

GeForce 930M 1012
+369%

GT 330M 216

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.

GeForce 930M 7274
+174%

GT 330M 2658

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:

900p	45−50 +350%	10 −350%
Full HD	17 +0%	17 +0%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3	0−1
Metro Exodus	4−5	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	13 +160%	5−6 −160%
Valorant	2−3	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Dota 2	6 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +114%	7−8 −114%
Fortnite	14−16	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	10 +400%	2−3 −400%
Metro Exodus	4−5	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	15 +87.5%	8−9 −87.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10 +100%	5−6 −100%
Valorant	2−3	0−1
World of Tanks	45−50 +200%	16−18 −200%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Dota 2	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry 5	11 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +213%	8−9 −213%
Valorant	2−3	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	1−2	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
World of Tanks	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Valorant	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Dota 2	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Fortnite	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	1−2	0−1
Valorant	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

This is how GeForce 930M and GT 330M compete in popular games:

GeForce 930M is 350% faster in 900p
A tie in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce 930M is 1700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce 930M is ahead in 31 test (91%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.53	0.54
Recency	13 March 2015	10 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	23 Watt

GeForce 930M has a 368.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 330M, on the other hand, has 43.5% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 930M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 330M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.