GeForce MX330 vs Radeon HD 8550M
Aggregate performance score
GeForce MX330 outperforms Radeon HD 8550M by a whopping 346% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 956 | 544 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.06 | 3.34 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Sun | N17S-LP / N17S-G3 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 16 November 2012 (11 years ago) | 20 February 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Current price | $338 | $1079 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce MX330 has 5467% better value for money than HD 8550M.
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 | 700 MHz | 1531 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 850 MHz | 1594 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 25 Watt (12 - 25 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 17.00 | 38.26 |
| Floating-point performance | 544.0 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon HD 8550M 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 x8 | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 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 | 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 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 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.
GeForce MX330 outperforms Radeon HD 8550M by 346% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce MX330 outperforms Radeon HD 8550M by 270% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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 | 4−5
−450%
| 22
+450%
|
| 4K | 5−6
−360%
| 23
+360%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 19 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−267%
|
11
+267%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−200%
|
21
+200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 27 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−417%
|
31
+417%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−375%
|
19
+375%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−200%
|
39
+200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1200%
|
26
+1200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−90%
|
18−20
+90%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 14 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−400%
|
15
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−529%
|
44
+529%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 17 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−267%
|
22
+267%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−200%
|
12
+200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−115%
|
28
+115%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−950%
|
21
+950%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+100%
|
5
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−375%
|
19
+375%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 7 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12
+71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−167%
|
16
+167%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16
+23.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−200%
|
12
+200%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−350%
|
9
+350%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−250%
|
21
+250%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
This is how HD 8550M and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX330 is 450% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX330 is 360% 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 HD 8550M is 100% faster than the GeForce MX330.
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 1200% faster than the HD 8550M.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8550M is ahead in 1 test (3%)
- GeForce MX330 is ahead in 37 tests (97%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.42 | 6.33 |
| Recency | 16 November 2012 | 20 February 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8550M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
