GeForce GT 330M vs Quadro P5200

Place in the ranking	181	1219
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	21.57	1.68
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GP104	GT216
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	21 February 2018 (6 years ago)	10 January 2010 (15 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	2560	48
Core clock speed	1556 MHz	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	1746 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	7,200 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	23 Watt
Texture fill rate	279.4	10.00
Floating-point processing power	8.94 TFLOPS	0.06528 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	182
ROPs	64	8
TMUs	160	16

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	medium sized
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	None	None
SLI options	-	+

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1800 MHz	Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth	230.4 GB/s	25.28 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	HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPort
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
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.

Optimus	+	-
Power management	no data	8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.4	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	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.

Quadro P5200 31.34
+5496%

GT 330M 0.56

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.

Quadro P5200 12045
+5476%

GT 330M 216

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Quadro P5200 65844
+2378%

GT 330M 2658

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	550−600 +5400%	10 −5400%
Full HD	114 +571%	17 −571%
4K	46	0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +578%	9−10 −578%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +2067%	3−4 −2067%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +9000%	1−2 −9000%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +578%	9−10 −578%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +2067%	3−4 −2067%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +2300%	6−7 −2300%
Forza Horizon 5	80−85 +8100%	1−2 −8100%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +7800%	1−2 −7800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +1200%	5−6 −1200%
Valorant	120−130 +6150%	2−3 −6150%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +9000%	1−2 −9000%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +578%	9−10 −578%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +2067%	3−4 −2067%
Dota 2	100−110 +10300%	1−2 −10300%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +1143%	7−8 −1143%
Fortnite	140−150	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +2300%	6−7 −2300%
Forza Horizon 5	80−85 +8100%	1−2 −8100%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−110 +10200%	1−2 −10200%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +7800%	1−2 −7800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	216 +2600%	8−9 −2600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +1200%	5−6 −1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +2020%	5−6 −2020%
Valorant	120−130 +6150%	2−3 −6150%
World of Tanks	270−280 +1518%	16−18 −1518%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +9000%	1−2 −9000%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +578%	9−10 −578%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +2067%	3−4 −2067%
Dota 2	100−110 +10300%	1−2 −10300%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +1143%	7−8 −1143%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +2300%	6−7 −2300%
Forza Horizon 5	80−85 +8100%	1−2 −8100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	84 +950%	8−9 −950%
Valorant	120−130 +6150%	2−3 −6150%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	55−60	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +5500%	1−2 −5500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +5733%	3−4 −5733%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33	0−1
World of Tanks	200−210 +20100%	1−2 −20100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +6000%	1−2 −6000%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%
Far Cry 5	95−100 +2350%	4−5 −2350%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 +8600%	1−2 −8600%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55	0−1
Metro Exodus	70−75 +6900%	1−2 −6900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +1150%	4−5 −1150%
Valorant	90−95 +1700%	5−6 −1700%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +175%	8−9 −175%
Dota 2	55−60 +280%	14−16 −280%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +280%	14−16 −280%
Metro Exodus	24−27	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	93 +9200%	1−2 −9200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +280%	14−16 −280%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +175%	8−9 −175%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Dota 2	55−60 +280%	14−16 −280%
Far Cry 5	40−45	0−1
Fortnite	40−45	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	50−55	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	27−30	0−1
Valorant	45−50 +4500%	1−2 −4500%

This is how Quadro P5200 and GT 330M compete in popular games:

Quadro P5200 is 5400% faster in 900p
Quadro P5200 is 571% faster in 1080p

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

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P5200 is 20100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Quadro P5200 surpassed GT 330M in all 34 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	31.34	0.56
Recency	21 February 2018	10 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	23 Watt

Quadro P5200 has a 5496.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

GT 330M, on the other hand, has 334.8% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 330M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P5200 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GT 330M 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.