Arc A380 vs GeForce GT 330M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 330M with Arc A380, including specs and performance data.
Arc A380 outperforms GT 330M by a whopping 2740% 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 | 1232 | 348 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 44.11 |
| Power efficiency | 1.69 | 14.73 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 14 June 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 48 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 131.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.06528 TFLOPS | 4.198 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 182 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 222 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
| 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | 1937 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.28 GB/s | 186.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
- Other tests
- Passmark
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
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.
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:
| 900p | 10
−2700%
| 280−290
+2700%
|
| Full HD | 18
−161%
| 47
+161%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.17 |
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset - Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4000%
|
41
+4000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−475%
|
23
+475%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3200%
|
33
+3200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1800%
|
76
+1800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−350%
|
18
+350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−600%
|
55−60
+600%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−339%
|
120−130
+339%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−1082%
|
200−210
+1082%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2800%
|
29
+2800%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−2627%
|
300−310
+2627%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1700%
|
72
+1700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−225%
|
13
+225%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 40 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−600%
|
55−60
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1000%
|
66
+1000%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−339%
|
120−130
+339%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2500%
|
26
+2500%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−2627%
|
300−310
+2627%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1325%
|
57
+1325%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−75%
|
7
+75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−600%
|
55−60
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−467%
|
34
+467%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−339%
|
120−130
+339%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−5500%
|
110−120
+5500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−2840%
|
140−150
+2840%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1000%
|
30−35
+1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−3700%
|
35−40
+3700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1050%
|
21−24
+1050%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−3300%
|
30−35
+3300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−86.7%
|
27−30
+86.7%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−2700%
|
80−85
+2700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−650%
|
14−16
+650%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−650%
|
14−16
+650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 183
+0%
|
183
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
This is how GT 330M and Arc A380 compete in popular games:
- Arc A380 is 2700% faster in 900p
- Arc A380 is 161% 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 Arc A380 is 5500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A380 is ahead in 32 tests (52%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (48%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.55 | 15.62 |
| Recency | 10 January 2010 | 14 June 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 75 Watt |
GT 330M has 226.1% lower power consumption.
Arc A380, on the other hand, has a 2740% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A380 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 330M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 330M is a notebook card while Arc A380 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.
