GeForce MX330 vs NVS 4200M

Place in the ranking	1164	590
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	2.08	43.05
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GF119	GP108
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	22 February 2011 (14 years ago)	10 February 2020 (5 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	48	384
Core clock speed	810 MHz	1531 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1594 MHz
Number of transistors	292 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	6.480	38.26
Floating-point processing power	0.1555 TFLOPS	1.224 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	16
TMUs	8	24

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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	DDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	48.06 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

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	2.1	6.1

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.

NVS 4200M 0.76

GeForce MX330 6.28
+726%

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.

NVS 4200M 293

GeForce MX330 2414
+724%

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.

NVS 4200M 507

GeForce MX330 4834
+853%

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.

NVS 4200M 1155

GeForce MX330 10706
+827%

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	13 −76.9%	23 +76.9%
4K	2−3 −1050%	23 +1050%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −85.7%	12−14 +85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −85.7%	12−14 +85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −520%	31 +520%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −175%	21−24 +175%
Valorant	27−30 −307%	118 +307%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −85.7%	12−14 +85.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	20−22 −390%	95−100 +390%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Dota 2	12−14 −438%	70 +438%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −340%	22 +340%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −1000%	11 +1000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −175%	21−24 +175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −280%	19 +280%
Valorant	27−30 −266%	106 +266%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −85.7%	12−14 +85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Dota 2	12−14 −392%	64 +392%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −220%	16 +220%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −175%	21−24 +175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −140%	12 +140%
Valorant	27−30 −134%	65−70 +134%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	0−1	0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	3−4 −1400%	45−50 +1400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	4−5 −825%	35−40 +825%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	5−6
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

1−2

−1100%

12−14
+1100%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart	0−1	5−6
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −13.3%	16−18 +13.3%
Valorant	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	2−3
Far Cry 5	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

2−3

−200%

6−7
+200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	29 +0%	29 +0%
Far Cry 5	23 +0%	23 +0%
Fortnite	63 +0%	63 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	23 +0%	23 +0%
Far Cry 5	15 +0%	15 +0%
Fortnite	34 +0%	34 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	19 +0%	19 +0%
Far Cry 5	14 +0%	14 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Valorant	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	0−1	0−1
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	0−1	0−1
Dota 2	24 +0%	24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

This is how NVS 4200M and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX330 is 77% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX330 is 1050% faster in 4K

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

in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 1400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX330 is ahead in 36 tests (58%)
there's a draw in 26 tests (42%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.76	6.28
Recency	22 February 2011	10 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	10 Watt

GeForce MX330 has a 726.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 4200M in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 4200M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce MX330 is a mobile workstation one.