Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce MX330 vs GTX 280M SLI
Aggregated performance score
GTX 280M SLI
2009
2048 MB GDDR3
3.47
GeForce MX330
2020
2 GB GDDR5
6.34
+82.7%
MX330 outperforms GTX 280M SLI by 83% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 685 | 541 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 1.08 | 3.34 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GTX | N17S-LP / N17S-G3 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (15 years old) | 20 February 2020 (4 years old) |
| Current price | $149 | $1079 |
Value for money
GeForce MX330 has 209% better value for money than GTX 280M SLI.
Technical specs
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 | 256 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 585 MHz | 1531 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1594 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 25 Watt (12 - 25 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 38.26 |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 280M SLI 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 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
Memory
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 950 MHz | 7000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 48.06 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 data | No outputs |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
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 | 12−14
−83.3%
| 22
+83.3%
|
| 4K | 12−14
−91.7%
| 23
+91.7%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−280%
|
19
+280%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−800%
|
9
+800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−222%
|
29
+222%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
−76.9%
|
23
+76.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−283%
|
23
+283%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−300%
|
24
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−210%
|
31
+210%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−171%
|
19
+171%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 6−7
−117%
|
13
+117%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−114%
|
15
+114%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−70%
|
17
+70%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−367%
|
14
+367%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−180%
|
14
+180%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−700%
|
8
+700%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−156%
|
23
+156%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14
+7.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−150%
|
15
+150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−150%
|
15
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−120%
|
22
+120%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−114%
|
15
+114%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10
+66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−120%
|
11
+120%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−138%
|
19
+138%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−300%
|
12
+300%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−40%
|
7
+40%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−111%
|
19
+111%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−133%
|
14
+133%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−133%
|
14
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−60%
|
16
+60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−50%
|
12
+50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 2−3 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
This is how GTX 280M SLI and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- GeForce MX330 is 83.3% faster than GTX 280M SLI
4K resolution:
- GeForce MX330 is 91.7% faster than GTX 280M SLI
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 800% faster than the GTX 280M SLI.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX330 is ahead in 57 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 3.47 | 6.34 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 20 February 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 25 Watt |
The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280M SLI in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
