GeForce GT 330M vs GTS 250

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTS 250 with GeForce GT 330M, including specs and performance data.

GTS 250
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 150 Watt
1.55
+182%

GTS 250 outperforms GT 330M by a whopping 182% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking9291177
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.05no data
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GT2xx (2009−2012)
GPU code nameG92BN11P-GE1
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date4 March 2009 (15 years ago)10 January 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data
Current price$131 (0.7x MSRP)$448

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTS 250 and GT 330M have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores12848
CUDA cores12848
Core clock speed738 MHz575 MHz
Number of transistors754 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt23 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate47.2 billion/sec9.200
Floating-point performance387.1 gflops121.44 gflops
Gigaflopsno data182

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTS 250 and GeForce GT 330M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length9" (228.6 mm) (22.9 cm)no data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors6-pinNone
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 typeGDDR3GDDR2, GDDR3, DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1100 MHzUp to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth70.4 GB/s25.6 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVIHDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPort
Multi monitor support++
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x15362048x1536
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

Supported technologies

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

Power managementno data8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model4.04.1
OpenGL3.02.1
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA++

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.

GTS 250 1.55
+182%
GT 330M 0.55

GTS 250 outperforms GT 330M by 182% 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%

GTS 250 598
+179%
GT 330M 214

GTS 250 outperforms GT 330M by 179% in Passmark.

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:

900p27−30
+170%
10
−170%
Full HD45−50
+181%
16
−181%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 2−3 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 2−3 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

4K
High Preset

Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2 0−1
Metro Exodus 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

This is how GTS 250 and GT 330M compete in popular games:

  • GTS 250 is 170% faster in 900p
  • GTS 250 is 181% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.55 0.55
Recency 4 March 2009 10 January 2010
Chip lithography 55 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 23 Watt

The GeForce GTS 250 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 330M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTS 250 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 330M is a notebook one.


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 GTS 250
GeForce GTS 250
NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M
GeForce GT 330M

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.


3.5 1587 votes

Rate GeForce GTS 250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 109 votes

Rate GeForce GT 330M 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.