GeForce MX330 vs Radeon PRO WX 2100

Place in performance ranking	613	545
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.98	3.33
Architecture	Polaris (2016−2019)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Polaris 12	N17S-LP / N17S-G3
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	21 March 2018 (6 years ago)	20 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	no data
Current price	$343 (2.3x MSRP)	$1079

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GeForce MX330 has 12% better value for money than PRO WX 2100.

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	512	384
Core clock speed	no data	1531 MHz
Boost clock speed	1219 MHz	1594 MHz
Number of transistors	2,200 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	25 Watt (12 - 25 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	39.01	38.26
Floating-point performance	1,248 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon PRO WX 2100 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	large	no data
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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	6000 MHz	7000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	48 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

1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort

No outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync	+	no data
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	6.4	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.

PRO WX 2100 4.74

GeForce MX330 6.33
+33.5%

GeForce MX330 outperforms Radeon PRO WX 2100 by 34% 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%

PRO WX 2100 1830

GeForce MX330 2443
+33.5%

GeForce MX330 outperforms Radeon PRO WX 2100 by 33% 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	16−18 −37.5%	22 +37.5%
4K	16−18 −50%	24 +50%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9

−25%

10−11
+25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 −90%	19 +90%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −125%	9 +125%
Battlefield 5	12−14 −50%	18−20 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −10%	11 +10%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −110%	21 +110%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −108%	27 +108%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −40.9%	31 +40.9%
Hitman 3	9−10 −77.8%	16 +77.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 −56%	39 +56%
Metro Exodus	8−9 −238%	27 +238%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −100%	26 +100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −23.5%	21−24 +23.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24 +50%	14 −50%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 −40%	14 +40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −100%	8 +100%
Battlefield 5	12−14 −50%	18−20 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −80%	18 +80%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −46.2%	19 +46.2%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −36.4%	30−33 +36.4%
Hitman 3	9−10 −33.3%	12 +33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 −324%	106 +324%
Metro Exodus	8−9 −113%	17 +113%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −61.5%	21 +61.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −23.5%	21−24 +23.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −90%	19 +90%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24 −257%	75 +257%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +42.9%	7 −42.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −20%	12 +20%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +37.5%	16 −37.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +56.3%	16 −56.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −23.5%	21−24 +23.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −20%	12 +20%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24 −23.8%	24−27 +23.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14
+44.4%

−44.4%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −37.5%	10−12 +37.5%
Hitman 3	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

−22.2%

10−12
+22.2%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Hitman 3	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Metro Exodus	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

−40%

7−8
+40%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	1−2
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%

This is how PRO WX 2100 and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX330 is 38% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX330 is 50% 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 PRO WX 2100 is 150% faster.
in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 324% faster.

All in all, in popular games: