GeForce MX330 vs Radeon 625

Place in performance ranking	762	544
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.45	3.34
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Polaris 24	N17S-LP / N17S-G3
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	12 August 2019 (4 years ago)	20 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Current price	$68	$1079

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GeForce MX330 has 642% better value for money than Radeon 625.

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	384	384
Core clock speed	no data	1531 MHz
Boost clock speed	1024 MHz	1594 MHz
Number of transistors	1,550 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	25 Watt (12 - 25 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	24.58	38.26

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon 625 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.

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	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	DDR3, GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	2250 MHz	7000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 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_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	no data	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.

Radeon 625 2.79

GeForce MX330 6.32
+127%

GeForce MX330 outperforms Radeon 625 by 127% based on our aggregated 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%

Radeon 625 1077

GeForce MX330 2444
+127%

GeForce MX330 outperforms Radeon 625 by 127% 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	9−10 −144%	22 +144%
4K	10−12 −130%	23 +130%

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	4−5 −375%	19 +375%
Battlefield 5	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −83.3%	11 +83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −90.9%	21 +90.9%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −440%	27 +440%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −210%	31 +210%
Hitman 3	7−8 −171%	19 +171%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −144%	39 +144%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −1250%	27 +1250%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −271%	26 +271%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −58.3%	18−20 +58.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 −600%	14 +600%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −250%	14 +250%
Battlefield 5	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −150%	15 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −300%	44 +300%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −240%	17 +240%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −120%	22 +120%
Hitman 3	7−8 −71.4%	12 +71.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −75%	28 +75%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −650%	15 +650%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −200%	21 +200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +140%	5 −140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −171%	19 +171%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 −500%	12 +500%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −75%	7 +75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +50%	4 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −9.1%	12 +9.1%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −60%	16 +60%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −600%	14 +600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −71.4%	12 +71.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

−28.6%

9
+28.6%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	5−6
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −60%	8−9 +60%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −175%	10−12 +175%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −100%	14−16 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5	9−10 −133%	21 +133%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	6−7
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	2−3

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−75%

7−8
+75%

This is how Radeon 625 and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX330 is 144% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX330 is 130% faster in 4K

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

in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 625 is 140% faster than the GeForce MX330.
in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 1250% faster than the Radeon 625.

All in all, in popular games:

Radeon 625 is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
GeForce MX330 is ahead in 53 tests (95%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.79	6.32
Recency	12 August 2019	20 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	25 Watt