GeForce GT 720 vs GT 330M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 330M with GeForce GT 720, including specs and performance data.
GT 720 outperforms 330M by a whopping 196% 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 | 992 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 1.77 | 6.35 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | GK208B |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 29 September 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $49 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 797 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 12.75 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.06528 TFLOPS | 0.306 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 182 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 128 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 Express 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 / GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | 1.8 GBps or 5.0 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.28 GB/s | 14.4 (DDR3) or 40 (GDDR5) |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | + | 3 displays |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| 3D Gaming | - | + |
| 3D Vision | - | + |
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| 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
−170%
| 27−30
+170%
|
| Full HD | 18
−178%
| 50−55
+178%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 0.98 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−186%
|
80−85
+186%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−194%
|
50−55
+194%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−186%
|
80−85
+186%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−186%
|
80−85
+186%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−186%
|
40−45
+186%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
This is how GT 330M and GT 720 compete in popular games:
- GT 720 is 170% faster in 900p
- GT 720 is 178% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.53 | 1.57 |
| Recency | 10 January 2010 | 29 September 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 19 Watt |
GT 720 has a 196.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 21.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 720 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 330M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 330M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GT 720 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.
