GeForce MX330 vs GT 635M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 635M and GeForce MX330, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GeForce MX330 outperforms GT 635M by a whopping 337% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 947 | 545 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.26 | 3.33 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | N13E-GE2 | N17S-LP / N17S-G3 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 December 2011 (12 years ago) | 20 February 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Current price | $55 | $1079 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce MX330 has 1181% better value for money than GT 635M.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 144 | 384 |
| CUDA cores | Up to 144 | no data |
| Core clock speed | Up to 675 MHz | 1531 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 753 MHz | 1594 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 25 Watt (12 - 25 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | Up to 16.2 billion/sec | 38.26 |
| Floating-point performance | 253.4 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 635M and GeForce MX330 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | Up to 192bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 7000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 43.2 GB/s | 48.06 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
MX330 outperforms GT 635M by 337% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
MX330 outperforms GT 635M by 335% in Passmark.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
MX330 outperforms GT 635M by 335% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
MX330 outperforms GT 635M by 402% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
MX330 outperforms GT 635M by 332% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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:
| Full HD | 25
+13.6%
| 22
−13.6%
|
| 4K | 5−6
−380%
| 24
+380%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−850%
|
19
+850%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−175%
|
11
+175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−950%
|
21
+950%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−800%
|
27
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−675%
|
31
+675%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−433%
|
16
+433%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−179%
|
39
+179%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1200%
|
26
+1200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14
+16.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−600%
|
14
+600%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−150%
|
10
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−800%
|
18
+800%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−533%
|
19
+533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−300%
|
12
+300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−657%
|
106
+657%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−950%
|
21
+950%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−280%
|
19
+280%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−525%
|
75
+525%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−250%
|
7
+250%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−500%
|
12
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−300%
|
16
+300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16
+14.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−140%
|
12
+140%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−117%
|
24−27
+117%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−350%
|
9
+350%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−350%
|
9
+350%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−350%
|
27
+350%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−700%
|
8
+700%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−467%
|
17
+467%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 3−4 |
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 3−4 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 2−3 |
This is how GT 635M and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:
- GT 635M is 14% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX330 is 380% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 1200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX330 is ahead in 50 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.45 | 6.33 |
| Recency | 6 December 2011 | 20 February 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 25 Watt |
The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 635M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
