RTX A5500 vs GeForce MX330
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX330 with RTX A5500, including specs and performance data.
RTX A5500 outperforms MX330 by a whopping 798% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 590 | 50 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 43.02 | 16.79 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GP108 | GA102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 10 February 2020 (5 years ago) | 22 March 2022 (2 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 | 384 | 10240 |
| Core clock speed | 1531 MHz | 1080 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1594 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 230 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38.26 | 532.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.224 TFLOPS | 34.1 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 96 |
| TMUs | 24 | 320 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
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 | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 768.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
- Other tests
- Passmark
- GeekBench 5 OpenCL
- GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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.
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 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
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 | 23
−770%
| 200−210
+770%
|
| 4K | 23
−770%
| 200−210
+770%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−757%
|
120−130
+757%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
−789%
|
240−250
+789%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−733%
|
100−105
+733%
|
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−757%
|
120−130
+757%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 29
−797%
|
260−270
+797%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
−789%
|
240−250
+789%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−733%
|
100−105
+733%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
−770%
|
200−210
+770%
|
| Fortnite | 63
−773%
|
550−600
+773%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 31
−771%
|
270−280
+771%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
−775%
|
140−150
+775%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−764%
|
190−200
+764%
|
| Valorant | 118
−790%
|
1050−1100
+790%
|
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−757%
|
120−130
+757%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 23
−770%
|
200−210
+770%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
−789%
|
240−250
+789%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
−767%
|
850−900
+767%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−733%
|
100−105
+733%
|
| Dota 2 | 70
−757%
|
600−650
+757%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−767%
|
130−140
+767%
|
| Fortnite | 34
−782%
|
300−310
+782%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 22
−764%
|
190−200
+764%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
−775%
|
140−150
+775%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−757%
|
180−190
+757%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
−764%
|
95−100
+764%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−764%
|
190−200
+764%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
−795%
|
170−180
+795%
|
| Valorant | 106
−796%
|
950−1000
+796%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 19
−795%
|
170−180
+795%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−733%
|
100−105
+733%
|
| Dota 2 | 64
−759%
|
550−600
+759%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
−757%
|
120−130
+757%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
−775%
|
140−150
+775%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−764%
|
190−200
+764%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
−733%
|
100−105
+733%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−796%
|
600−650
+796%
|
| Fortnite | 21
−757%
|
180−190
+757%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−789%
|
80−85
+789%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−789%
|
400−450
+789%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
−757%
|
60−65
+757%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−700%
|
40−45
+700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−711%
|
300−310
+711%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−733%
|
550−600
+733%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−789%
|
80−85
+789%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−700%
|
40−45
+700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−733%
|
100−105
+733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−757%
|
120−130
+757%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−789%
|
80−85
+789%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−733%
|
100−105
+733%
|
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−700%
|
40−45
+700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−782%
|
150−160
+782%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−700%
|
24−27
+700%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−767%
|
260−270
+767%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−775%
|
35−40
+775%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
| Dota 2 | 24
−775%
|
210−220
+775%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−733%
|
50−55
+733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−789%
|
80−85
+789%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−733%
|
50−55
+733%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−733%
|
50−55
+733%
|
This is how GeForce MX330 and RTX A5500 compete in popular games:
- RTX A5500 is 770% faster in 1080p
- RTX A5500 is 770% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.40 | 48.47 |
| Recency | 10 February 2020 | 22 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 24 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 230 Watt |
GeForce MX330 has 2200% lower power consumption.
RTX A5500, on the other hand, has a 797.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A5500 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX330 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX330 is a notebook card while RTX A5500 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
