GeForce GTX 1630 vs MX330

Place in performance ranking	542	362
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.33	12.57
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	N17S-LP / N17S-G3	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	20 February 2020 (4 years ago)	28 June 2022 (1 year ago)
Current price	$1079	$213

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1630 has 277% better value for money than GeForce MX330.

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	384	512
Core clock speed	1531 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1594 MHz	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	1,800 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt (12 - 25 Watt TGP)	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	38.26	57.12

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce MX330 and GeForce GTX 1630 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.

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	no data	145 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	7000 MHz	12 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	48.06 GB/s	96 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no 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 Connectors	No outputs	1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI	no data	+

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3
CUDA	6.1	7.5

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.

GeForce MX330 6.33

GTX 1630 12.87
+103%

GTX 1630 outperforms MX330 by 103% 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%

GeForce MX330 2449

GTX 1630 4980
+103%

GTX 1630 outperforms MX330 by 103% 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:

Full HD	22 −81.8%	40−45 +81.8%
4K	23 −95.7%	45−50 +95.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11

−80%

18−20
+80%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	19 −84.2%	35−40 +84.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9 −100%	18−20 +100%
Battlefield 5	29 −89.7%	55−60 +89.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	23 −95.7%	45−50 +95.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −80%	18−20 +80%
Far Cry 5	23 −95.7%	45−50 +95.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	24 −87.5%	45−50 +87.5%
Forza Horizon 4	31 −93.5%	60−65 +93.5%
Hitman 3	19 −84.2%	35−40 +84.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	13 −84.6%	24−27 +84.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	15 −100%	30−33 +100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	17 −76.5%	30−33 +76.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14 −92.9%	27−30 +92.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14 −92.9%	27−30 +92.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8 −100%	16−18 +100%
Battlefield 5	23 −95.7%	45−50 +95.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14 −92.9%	27−30 +92.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −80%	18−20 +80%
Far Cry 5	15 −100%	30−33 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	15 −100%	30−33 +100%
Forza Horizon 4	22 −81.8%	40−45 +81.8%
Hitman 3	15 −100%	30−33 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10 −80%	18−20 +80%
Metro Exodus	11 −90.9%	21−24 +90.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 −90.9%	21−24 +90.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10 −80%	18−20 +80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	19 −84.2%	35−40 +84.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12 −100%	24−27 +100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7 −100%	14−16 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 −100%	14−16 +100%
Battlefield 5	19 −84.2%	35−40 +84.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −80%	18−20 +80%
Far Cry 5	14 −92.9%	27−30 +92.9%
Far Cry New Dawn	14 −92.9%	27−30 +92.9%
Forza Horizon 4	16 −87.5%	30−33 +87.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12 −100%	24−27 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 −100%	18−20 +100%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −100%	18−20 +100%
Hitman 3	10−11 −80%	18−20 +80%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −100%	24−27 +100%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −100%	18−20 +100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Battlefield 5	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −80%	18−20 +80%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −100%	14−16 +100%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −100%	18−20 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 −100%	12−14 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Hitman 3	6−7 −100%	12−14 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −100%	16−18 +100%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Battlefield 5	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	6−7 −100%	12−14 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 −100%	16−18 +100%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −100%	12−14 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%

This is how GeForce MX330 and GTX 1630 compete in popular games:

GTX 1630 is 81.8% faster than GeForce MX330 in 1080p
GTX 1630 is 95.7% faster than GeForce MX330 in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.33	12.87
Recency	20 February 2020	28 June 2022
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	75 Watt