GeForce MX330 vs GT 330M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 330M and GeForce MX330, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 330M
2010
1 GB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.56

MX330 outperforms GT 330M by a whopping 1025% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1210574
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.7043.91
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGT216GP108
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date10 January 2010 (14 years ago)10 February 2020 (4 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 cores48384
Core clock speed625 MHz1531 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1594 MHz
Number of transistors486 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate10.0038.26
Floating-point processing power0.06528 TFLOPS1.224 TFLOPS
Gigaflops182no data
ROPs816
TMUs1624

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.28 GB/s48.06 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 ConnectorsHDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPortNo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+
Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.4
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA+6.1

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.

GT 330M 0.56
GeForce MX330 6.30
+1025%

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.

GT 330M 216
GeForce MX330 2430
+1025%

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:

900p10
−1000%
110−120
+1000%
Full HD17
−29.4%
22
+29.4%
4K2−3
−1050%
23
+1050%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−375%
19
+375%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−267%
11
+267%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2600%
27
+2600%
Hitman 3 5−6
−220%
16
+220%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−973%
118
+973%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−267%
21−24
+267%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−167%
80
+167%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−450%
22
+450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−233%
10
+233%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−1800%
19
+1800%
Hitman 3 5−6
−200%
15
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−864%
106
+864%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−267%
21−24
+267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−100%
20−22
+100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−150%
75
+150%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−75%
7
+75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−33.3%
4
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Hitman 3 5−6
−160%
13
+160%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−45.5%
16
+45.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−267%
21−24
+267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−20%
12
+20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−70%
50−55
+70%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 6−7
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%
Hitman 3 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−3900%
40−45
+3900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−267%
10−12
+267%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 3−4

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9
+0%
9
+0%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 27
+0%
27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 26
+0%
26
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8
+0%
8
+0%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 21
+0%
21
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20
+0%
20
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16
+0%
16
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9
+0%
9
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hitman 3 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how GT 330M and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX330 is 1000% faster in 900p
  • GeForce MX330 is 29% faster in 1080p
  • GeForce MX330 is 1050% faster in 4K

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 3900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce MX330 is ahead in 35 tests (51%)
  • there's a draw in 34 tests (49%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.56 6.30
Recency 10 January 2010 10 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 10 Watt

GeForce MX330 has a 1025% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 130% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX330 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M
GeForce GT 330M
NVIDIA GeForce MX330
GeForce MX330

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 115 votes

Rate GeForce GT 330M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 2161 vote

Rate GeForce MX330 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.