GeForce 305M vs GT 330M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 330M and GeForce 305M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
330M outperforms 305M by a considerable 49% 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 | 1277 | 1333 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.75 | 1.94 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | GT218 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 January 2010 (15 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 | 48 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 525 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 14 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 4.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.06528 TFLOPS | 0.0368 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 182 | 55 |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 | 8 |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 32 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | Up to 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | Up to 700 (DDR3), Up to 700 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.28 GB/s | 11.2 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 Connectors | HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPort | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | + | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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
+66.7%
| 6−7
−66.7%
|
| Full HD | 18
+50%
| 12−14
−50%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+3.8%
|
24−27
−3.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+3.8%
|
24−27
−3.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+3.8%
|
24−27
−3.8%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how GT 330M and GeForce 305M compete in popular games:
- GT 330M is 67% faster in 900p
- GT 330M is 50% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 330M is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 330M performs better in 15 tests (50%)
- there's a draw in 15 tests (50%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.52 | 0.35 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 14 Watt |
GT 330M has a 48.6% higher aggregate performance score.
GeForce 305M, on the other hand, has 64.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 330M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 305M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
