GeForce MX330 vs Quadro T1000 Max-Q

Place in performance ranking	293	544
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	3.33
Architecture	Turing (2018−2021)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	N19P-Q1	N17S-LP / N17S-G3
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)	20 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Current price	no data	$1079

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	768	384
Core clock speed	795 / 1230 MHz	1531 MHz
Boost clock speed	1455 MHz	1594 MHz
Number of transistors	4,700 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 - 40 Watt	25 Watt (12 - 25 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	75.60	38.26

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro T1000 Max-Q 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.

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	8000 MHz	7000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 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

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.6	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	3.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2	1.2.131
CUDA	7.5	6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

T1000 Max-Q 17.40
+175%

GeForce MX330 6.33

Quadro T1000 Max-Q outperforms GeForce MX330 by 175% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

T1000 Max-Q 6720
+175%

GeForce MX330 2443

Quadro T1000 Max-Q outperforms GeForce MX330 by 175% in Passmark.

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	60−65 +173%	22 −173%
4K	65−70 +171%	24 −171%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

27−30
+170%

10−11

−170%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	50−55 +163%	19 −163%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +167%	9 −167%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +150%	18−20 −150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−33 +173%	11 −173%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +170%	10−11 −170%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +162%	21 −162%
Far Cry New Dawn	70−75 +159%	27 −159%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 +174%	31 −174%
Hitman 3	40−45 +150%	16 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−105 +156%	39 −156%
Metro Exodus	70−75 +159%	27 −159%
Red Dead Redemption 2	70−75 +169%	26 −169%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +162%	21−24 −162%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +150%	14 −150%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +150%	14 −150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +163%	8 −163%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +150%	18−20 −150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +170%	10 −170%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +170%	10−11 −170%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +150%	18 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	50−55 +163%	19 −163%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +167%	30−33 −167%
Hitman 3	30−33 +150%	12 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	290−300 +174%	106 −174%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +165%	17 −165%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 +162%	21 −162%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +162%	21−24 −162%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +163%	19 −163%
Watch Dogs: Legion	200−210 +167%	75 −167%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +157%	7 −157%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +157%	7−8 −157%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +170%	10−11 −170%
Far Cry 5	30−33 +150%	12 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +150%	16 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +150%	16 −150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +162%	21−24 −162%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−33 +150%	12 −150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +169%	24−27 −169%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

+167%

9
−167%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +167%	9−10 −167%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +163%	8−9 −163%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +170%	10−11 −170%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +173%	10−12 −173%
Hitman 3	27−30 +170%	10−11 −170%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +150%	14−16 −150%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−33
+173%

10−12

−173%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Hitman 3	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +157%	7−8 −157%
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20

+157%

7−8
−157%

This is how T1000 Max-Q and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

T1000 Max-Q is 173% faster in 1080p
T1000 Max-Q is 171% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	17.40	6.33
Recency	27 May 2019	20 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	25 Watt