GeForce MX330 vs Qualcomm Adreno 685

Place in the ranking	827	577
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	24.90	43.23
Architecture	no data	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	no data	GP108
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	6 December 2018 (6 years ago)	10 February 2020 (4 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	no data	384
Core clock speed	no data	1531 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1594 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	7 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	38.26
Floating-point processing power	no data	1.224 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	16
TMUs	no data	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).

Interface	no data	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	no data	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	no data	2 GB
Memory bus width	no data	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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 data

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	12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	no data	6.4
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	1.2
Vulkan	-	1.2.131
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.

Qualcomm Adreno 685 2.54

GeForce MX330 6.30
+148%

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.

Qualcomm Adreno 685 979

GeForce MX330 2426
+148%

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.

Qualcomm Adreno 685 1927

GeForce MX330 4834
+151%

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	8−9 −175%	22 +175%
4K	9−10 −167%	24 +167%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6

−100%

10−11
+100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −111%	19 +111%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	9
Battlefield 5	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −57.1%	11 +57.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −320%	21 +320%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −286%	27 +286%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −215%	40−45 +215%
Hitman 3	7−8 −129%	16 +129%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −462%	118 +462%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −1250%	27 +1250%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −333%	26 +333%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −83.3%	21−24 +83.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −111%	80 +111%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −144%	22 +144%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	8
Battlefield 5	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −42.9%	10 +42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −260%	18 +260%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −171%	19 +171%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −215%	40−45 +215%
Hitman 3	7−8 −114%	15 +114%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −405%	106 +405%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −950%	21 +950%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −233%	20 +233%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −83.3%	21−24 +83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −42.9%	20−22 +42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −97.4%	75 +97.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +28.6%	7 −28.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	8−9
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +75%	4 −75%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −140%	12 +140%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −23.1%	16 +23.1%
Hitman 3	7−8 −85.7%	13 +85.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +31.3%	16 −31.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −83.3%	21−24 +83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +16.7%	12 −16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −34.2%	50−55 +34.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−50%

9
+50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Hitman 3	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −100%	14−16 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 −150%	40−45 +150%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−83.3%

10−12
+83.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	2−3

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−75%

7−8
+75%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +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

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

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%

This is how Qualcomm Adreno 685 and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX330 is 175% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX330 is 167% faster in 4K

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

in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 685 is 75% faster.
in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 1250% faster.

All in all, in popular games: