GeForce MX330 vs GTX 680MX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680MX and GeForce MX330, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
680MX outperforms MX330 by an impressive 62% 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 | 519 | 646 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.72 | 43.16 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | no data | GP108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (13 years ago) | 10 February 2020 (5 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 cores | 1536 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 1531 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1594 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3540 Million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 92.2 billion/sec | 38.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 144 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | 48.06 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | no data | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| Optimus | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
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.
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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 | 55
+150%
| 22
−150%
|
| 4K | 35−40
+52.2%
| 23
−52.2%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+81.5%
|
27−30
−81.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+41.4%
|
29
−41.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+81.5%
|
27−30
−81.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+8.8%
|
34
−8.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+30.4%
|
23
−30.4%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−12.5%
|
63
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+29%
|
31
−29%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−31.1%
|
118
+31.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+78.3%
|
23
−78.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+81.5%
|
27−30
−81.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+46.9%
|
95−100
−46.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−4.5%
|
70
+4.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+60.9%
|
23
−60.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+100%
|
15
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+64.7%
|
34
−64.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+81.8%
|
22
−81.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+70%
|
20−22
−70%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+63.6%
|
11
−63.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+36.8%
|
19
−36.8%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−17.8%
|
106
+17.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+116%
|
19
−116%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+4.7%
|
64
−4.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+68.2%
|
22
−68.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+114%
|
14
−114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+150%
|
16
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+16.7%
|
12
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+36.4%
|
65−70
−36.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+167%
|
21
−167%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+59.1%
|
40−45
−59.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+26.3%
|
35−40
−26.3%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+61.9%
|
60−65
−61.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+63.6%
|
10−12
−63.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+69.2%
|
12−14
−69.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+17.6%
|
16−18
−17.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+65.5%
|
27−30
−65.5%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24
−41.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
This is how GTX 680MX and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:
- GTX 680MX is 150% faster in 1080p
- GTX 680MX is 52% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680MX is 233% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 31% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 680MX performs better in 57 tests (93%)
- GeForce MX330 performs better in 4 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.08 | 5.62 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 10 February 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | 10 Watt |
GTX 680MX has a 61.6% higher aggregate performance score.
GeForce MX330, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 1120% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 680MX is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX330 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
