GeForce GT 330M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 and GeForce GT 330M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms GT 330M by a whopping 1847% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 397 | 1177 |
| Place by popularity | 16 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | N11P-GE1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (3 years ago) | 10 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Current price | no data | $448 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 96 | 48 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 48 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 575 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 9.200 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 121.44 gflops |
| Gigaflops | no data | 182 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Iris Xe Graphics G7 and GeForce GT 330M 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.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | 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 | DDR4 | GDDR2, GDDR3, DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | no data | HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | no data | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | + |
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 | 190−200
+1800%
| 10
−1800%
|
| Full HD | 300−350
+1775%
| 16
−1775%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Battlefield 5 | 650−700
+1812%
|
30−35
−1812%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 450−500
+1700%
|
24−27
−1700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1000−1050
+1823%
|
50−55
−1823%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 550−600
+1733%
|
30−33
−1733%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Battlefield 5 | 650−700
+1812%
|
30−35
−1812%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 450−500
+1700%
|
24−27
−1700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1000−1050
+1823%
|
50−55
−1823%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 650−700
+1812%
|
30−35
−1812%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 550−600
+1733%
|
30−33
−1733%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Battlefield 5 | 650−700
+1812%
|
30−35
−1812%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 450−500
+1700%
|
24−27
−1700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 550−600
+1733%
|
30−33
−1733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1000−1050
+1823%
|
50−55
−1823%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | no data |
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 250−260
+1823%
|
12−14
−1823%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 400−450
+1718%
|
21−24
−1718%
|
| Metro Exodus | 300−310
+1775%
|
16−18
−1775%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 350−400
+1844%
|
18−20
−1844%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 290−300
+1833%
|
14−16
−1833%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 190−200
+1800%
|
10−11
−1800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 400−450
+1805%
|
21−24
−1805%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 350−400
+1844%
|
18−20
−1844%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 350−400
+1650%
|
20−22
−1650%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 95−100
+1800%
|
5−6
−1800%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 210−220
+1809%
|
10−12
−1809%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 190−200
+1800%
|
10−11
−1800%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 110−120
+1733%
|
6−7
−1733%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 150−160
+1775%
|
8−9
−1775%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+1800%
|
10−11
−1800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+1733%
|
6−7
−1733%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 150−160
+1775%
|
8−9
−1775%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280
+1829%
|
14−16
−1829%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 and GT 330M compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 1800% faster in 900p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 1775% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.71 | 0.55 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 10 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 40 nm |
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 330M in performance tests.
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.
