RTX A500 Mobile vs GeForce MX330

Place in performance ranking	544	321
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.33	no data
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Ampere (2020−2022)
GPU code name	N17S-LP / N17S-G3	GA107
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	20 February 2020 (4 years ago)	30 March 2022 (2 years ago)
Current price	$1079	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	2048
Core clock speed	1531 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1594 MHz	1537 MHz
Number of transistors	1,800 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt (12 - 25 Watt TGP)	60 Watt (20 - 60 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	38.26	98.37

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce MX330 and RTX A500 Mobile 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.

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	14000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	48.06 GB/s	96 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

No outputs

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 Ultimate (12_2)
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	8.6

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

RTX A500 Mobile 15.49
+145%

RTX A500 Mobile outperforms GeForce MX330 by 145% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GeForce MX330 4834

RTX A500 Mobile 10748
+122%

RTX A500 Mobile outperforms GeForce MX330 by 122% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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 −173%	60 +173%
1440p	12−14 −158%	31 +158%
4K	24 −129%	55−60 +129%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11

−140%

24−27
+140%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	19 −63.2%	30−35 +63.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9 −189%	24−27 +189%
Battlefield 5	18−20 −178%	50−55 +178%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	11 −182%	30−35 +182%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −140%	24−27 +140%
Far Cry 5	21 −71.4%	35−40 +71.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	27 −55.6%	40−45 +55.6%
Forza Horizon 4	31 −135%	70−75 +135%
Hitman 3	16 −87.5%	30−33 +87.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	39 −59%	60−65 +59%
Metro Exodus	27 −92.6%	50−55 +92.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	26 −65.4%	40−45 +65.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 −267%	77 +267%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14 −257%	50−55 +257%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14 −121%	30−35 +121%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8 −225%	24−27 +225%
Battlefield 5	18−20 −178%	50−55 +178%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10 −210%	30−35 +210%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −140%	24−27 +140%
Far Cry 5	18 −100%	35−40 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	19 −121%	40−45 +121%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −143%	70−75 +143%
Hitman 3	12 −150%	30−33 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	106 +71%	60−65 −71%
Metro Exodus	17 −206%	50−55 +206%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21 −105%	40−45 +105%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 −195%	62 +195%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	19 −200%	57 +200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75 +50%	50−55 −50%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7 −343%	30−35 +343%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 −271%	24−27 +271%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4 −675%	30−35 +675%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −140%	24−27 +140%
Far Cry 5	12 −200%	35−40 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	16 −356%	70−75 +356%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16 −288%	60−65 +288%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 −157%	54 +157%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12 −158%	31 +158%
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 −92.3%	50−55 +92.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

−378%

40−45
+378%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 −222%	27−30 +222%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −167%	16−18 +167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −1200%	12−14 +1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −138%	18−20 +138%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −150%	24−27 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 −173%	30−33 +173%
Hitman 3	10−11 −80%	18−20 +80%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −121%	30−35 +121%
Metro Exodus	6−7 −350%	27−30 +350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	3−4 −1200%	39 +1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −220%	16−18 +220%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

−127%

24−27
+127%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 −200%	14−16 +200%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −175%	10−12 +175%
Hitman 3	2−3 −450%	10−12 +450%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 −183%	16−18 +183%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −400%	14−16 +400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −125%	9−10 +125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	3−4
Far Cry 5	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −250%	21−24 +250%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 −183%	16−18 +183%
Metro Exodus	7−8 −114%	14−16 +114%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

−100%

14−16
+100%

This is how GeForce MX330 and RTX A500 Mobile compete in popular games:

RTX A500 Mobile is 173% faster in 1080p
RTX A500 Mobile is 158% faster in 1440p
RTX A500 Mobile is 129% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 71% faster.
in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX A500 Mobile is 1200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX330 is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
RTX A500 Mobile is ahead in 69 tests (97%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.33	15.49
Recency	20 February 2020	30 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	60 Watt