GeForce MX330 vs Quadro FX 2700M

Place in the ranking	1115	573
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.02	no data
Power efficiency	1.01	43.62
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	G94	GP108
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	14 August 2008 (16 years ago)	10 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$99.95	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	530 MHz	1531 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1594 MHz
Number of transistors	505 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	12.72	38.26
Floating-point processing power	0.1272 TFLOPS	1.224 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	24	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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-HE	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	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	799 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	51.14 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 compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.4
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	1.1	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. 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.

FX 2700M 0.95

GeForce MX330 6.31
+564%

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.

FX 2700M 366

GeForce MX330 2434
+565%

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	3−4 −633%	22 +633%
4K	3−4 −667%	23 +667%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	33.32	no data
4K	33.32	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−233%

10−11
+233%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −280%	19 +280%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −267%	11 +267%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Far Cry 5	0−1	21
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −1250%	27 +1250%
Hitman 3	5−6 −220%	16 +220%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −808%	118 +808%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −2500%	26 +2500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −214%	21−24 +214%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −158%	80 +158%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −340%	22 +340%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −233%	10 +233%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Far Cry 5	0−1	18
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −850%	19 +850%
Hitman 3	5−6 −200%	15 +200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −715%	106 +715%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −1900%	20 +1900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −214%	21−24 +214%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −100%	20−22 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −142%	75 +142%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −40%	7 +40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −33.3%	4 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Far Cry 5	0−1	12
Hitman 3	5−6 −160%	13 +160%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −23.1%	16 +23.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −214%	21−24 +214%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −20%	12 +20%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −64.5%	50−55 +64.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

−800%

9
+800%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Hitman 3	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −250%	14−16 +250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	5−6
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−267%

10−12
+267%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

4−5

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	3−4
Far Cry 5	0−1	3−4

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−250%

7−8
+250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9 +0%	9 +0%
Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	27 +0%	27 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8 +0%	8 +0%
Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	21 +0%	21 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16 +0%	16 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Hitman 3	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

This is how FX 2700M and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX330 is 633% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX330 is 667% faster in 4K

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

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 2500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX330 is ahead in 40 tests (63%)
there's a draw in 24 tests (38%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.95	6.31
Recency	14 August 2008	10 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	2 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	10 Watt

GeForce MX330 has a 564.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 550% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 2700M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce MX330 is a mobile workstation one.

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