GeForce GT 330M vs GTX 980
Aggregate performance score
GTX 980 outperforms GT 330M by a whopping 5131% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 179 | 1177 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 9.67 | no data |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | N11P-GE1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 19 September 2014 (9 years ago) | 10 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | no data |
| Current price | $339 (0.6x MSRP) | $448 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 980 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 cores | 2048 | 48 |
| CUDA cores | 2048 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1064 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1216 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 144 billion/sec | 9.200 |
| Floating-point performance | 4,981 gflops | 121.44 gflops |
| Gigaflops | no data | 182 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 980 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 size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 10.5" (26.7 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 500 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pins | 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 | GDDR2, GDDR3, DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 25.6 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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | + |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | no data |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | no data |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | no data |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
| BatteryBoost | + | no data |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/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.
GTX 980 outperforms GT 330M by 5131% based on our aggregated 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%
GTX 980 outperforms GT 330M by 5098% in Passmark.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GTX 980 outperforms GT 330M by 1330% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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:
| 900p | 500−550
+4900%
| 10
−4900%
|
| Full HD | 94
+488%
| 16
−488%
|
| 1440p | 51 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 40 | 0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 69
+6800%
|
1−2
−6800%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 86
+8500%
|
1−2
−8500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 60−65
+3100%
|
2−3
−3100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 84
+2000%
|
4−5
−2000%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 77
+7600%
|
1−2
−7600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90
+2900%
|
3−4
−2900%
|
| Hitman 3 | 70−75
+2267%
|
3−4
−2267%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100−105
+809%
|
10−12
−809%
|
| Metro Exodus | 80−85
+8000%
|
1−2
−8000%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 75−80
+7400%
|
1−2
−7400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 90−95
+1025%
|
8−9
−1025%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 58
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 74
+7300%
|
1−2
−7300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 60−65
+3100%
|
2−3
−3100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+1550%
|
4−5
−1550%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 31 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 83
+2667%
|
3−4
−2667%
|
| Hitman 3 | 70−75
+2267%
|
3−4
−2267%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100−105
+809%
|
10−12
−809%
|
| Metro Exodus | 80−85
+8000%
|
1−2
−8000%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 75−80
+7400%
|
1−2
−7400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 26
+225%
|
8−9
−225%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 85
+2733%
|
3−4
−2733%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 60−65
+3100%
|
2−3
−3100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50
+1150%
|
4−5
−1150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 59
+1867%
|
3−4
−1867%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100−105
+809%
|
10−12
−809%
|
| Metro Exodus | 80−85
+8000%
|
1−2
−8000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 75−80
+7400%
|
1−2
−7400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 47 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 60−65
+6200%
|
1−2
−6200%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40−45
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 48
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 48 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 65−70
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+1175%
|
4−5
−1175%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 17 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 32 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 34 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+600%
|
4−5
−600%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
This is how GTX 980 and GT 330M compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 is 4900% faster in 900p
- GTX 980 is 488% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 980 is 4700% faster than the GT 330M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 980 surpassed GT 330M in all 31 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.77 | 0.55 |
| Recency | 19 September 2014 | 10 January 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 23 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 980 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 330M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
