NVIDIA GeForce MX330 vs Intel Iris Plus Graphics 655

Buy
VS
Buy
Price now 999$
Games supported 67%
Intel Iris Plus Graphics 655
Iris Plus Graphics 655
Buy
  • Interface PCIe 3.0 x1
  • Core clock speed 300
  • Max video memory System Shared
  • Memory type DDR3/DDR4
  • Memory clock speed System Shared
  • Maximum resolution
NVIDIA GeForce MX330
NVIDIA GeForce MX330
Buy
  • Interface PCIe 3.0 x16
  • Core clock speed 1531
  • Max video memory 2 GB
  • Memory type GDDR5
  • Memory clock speed 7000
  • Maximum resolution
Price now 1079$
Games supported 66%

General info

Comparison of graphics card architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.

Place in performance rating452465
Place by popularityno data66
Value for money2.033.08
ArchitectureGen. 9.5 Kaby Lake (2015−2017)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameKaby Lake GT3eN17S-LP / N17S-G3
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 September 2017
(5 years old)
20 February 2020
(2 years old)
Current price$999 $1079
Value for money

To calculate the index we compare the characteristics of graphics cards against their prices.

  • 0
  • 50
  • 100
  • 0
  • 50
  • 100

Technical specs

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 cores48384
Core clock speed300 MHz1531 MHz
Boost clock speed1200 MHz1594 MHz
Number of transistors189 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm14 nm
Thermal design power (TDP)15 Watt25 Watt (12 - 25 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate50.4038.26

Compatibility, dimensions and requirements

Information on Iris Plus Graphics 655 and GeForce MX330 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.

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x1PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

Memory

Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeDDR3/DDR4GDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared2 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared7000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data48.06 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Video outputs and ports

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Technologies

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

Optimusno data+
Quick Sync+no data

API support

APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.11.2
Vulkan1.1.1031.2.131
CUDAno data6.1

Benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.


Overall score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. 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.

Iris Plus Graphics 655 6.64
+4.1%
GeForce MX330 6.38
  • Passmark
  • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
  • 3DMark Fire Strike Score
  • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
  • 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
  • 3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Passmark

This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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%

Iris Plus Graphics 655 1766
GeForce MX330 2505
+41.8%

GeForce MX330 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 655 by 42% in Passmark.

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: 16%

Iris Plus Graphics 655 2900
GeForce MX330 4834
+66.7%

GeForce MX330 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 655 by 67% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Fire Strike Score

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Iris Plus Graphics 655 1815
GeForce MX330 3470
+91.2%

GeForce MX330 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 655 by 91% in 3DMark Fire Strike Score.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Iris Plus Graphics 655 1949
GeForce MX330 3762
+93.1%

GeForce MX330 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 655 by 93% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Iris Plus Graphics 655 14714
GeForce MX330 20729
+40.9%

GeForce MX330 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 655 by 41% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

Iris Plus Graphics 655 140458
GeForce MX330 243721
+73.5%

GeForce MX330 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 655 by 74% in 3DMark Ice Storm 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

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD23
+4.5%
22
−4.5%
1440p15no data
4K18
−22.2%
22
+22.2%

Popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−46.2%
19
+46.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
−50%
9
+50%
Battlefield 5 20−22
−45%
29
+45%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−21.1%
23
+21.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Far Cry 5 11
−109%
23
+109%
Far Cry New Dawn 11
−118%
24
+118%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−40.9%
31
+40.9%
Hitman 3 12−14
−46.2%
19
+46.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−30%
13
+30%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
−36.4%
15
+36.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 13
−30.8%
17
+30.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
−55.6%
14
+55.6%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−7.7%
14
+7.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
−33.3%
8
+33.3%
Battlefield 5 20−22
−15%
23
+15%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+35.7%
14
−35.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Far Cry 5 14−16
−7.1%
15
+7.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+0%
15
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
22
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
−15.4%
15
+15.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+0%
10
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−22.2%
11
+22.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4
−150%
10
+150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
−72.7%
19
+72.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
−33.3%
12
+33.3%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+85.7%
7
−85.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Battlefield 5 20−22
+5.3%
19
−5.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+7.1%
14
−7.1%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+37.5%
16
−37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
−100%
12
+100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Hitman 3 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Battlefield 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance rating 6.64 6.38
Recency 1 September 2017 20 February 2020
Pipelines / CUDA cores 48 384
Thermal design power (TDP) 15 Watt 25 Watt

Technical City couldn't decide between

Intel Iris Plus Graphics 655
Iris Plus Graphics 655

and

NVIDIA GeForce MX330
GeForce MX330

The differences in performance seem too small.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Cast your vote

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Competitors of GeForce MX330 by AMD

The nearest GeForce MX330's AMD equivalent is Radeon R9 M390, which is faster by 2% and higher by 10 positions in our performance rating.

AMD Radeon R9 M390 Radeon R9 M390
Compare

Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce MX330:

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance more or less close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User rating

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 218 ratings

Rate Intel Iris Plus Graphics 655 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 1401 rating

Rate NVIDIA GeForce MX330 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.