GeForce GT 330M vs Radeon Pro 555

Place in the ranking	519	1222
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	7.49	1.67
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Polaris 21	GT216
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	5 June 2017 (7 years ago)	10 January 2010 (15 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	768	48
Core clock speed	850 MHz	625 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	23 Watt
Texture fill rate	40.80	10.00
Floating-point processing power	1.306 TFLOPS	0.06528 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	182
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	48	16

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).

Laptop size	large	medium sized
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	None	None
SLI options	-	+

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1275 MHz	Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth	81.6 GB/s	25.28 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	HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPort
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync	+	-
Power management	no data	8.0

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_0)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.4	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	-	+

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.

Pro 555 7.62
+1365%

GT 330M 0.52

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.

Pro 555 3140
+1354%

GT 330M 216

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:

900p	140−150 +1300%	10 −1300%
Full HD	32 +88.2%	17 −88.2%
4K	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +114%	7−8 −114%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +114%	7−8 −114%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
Forza Horizon 5	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%
Valorant	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	28 +2700%	1−2 −2700%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +114%	7−8 −114%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Dota 2	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Far Cry 5	30 +275%	8−9 −275%
Fortnite	45−50	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
Forza Horizon 5	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Grand Theft Auto V	29 +2800%	1−2 −2800%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	33 +313%	8−9 −313%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +400%	5−6 −400%
Valorant	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%
World of Tanks	120−130 +624%	16−18 −624%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +114%	7−8 −114%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Dota 2	57 +1800%	3−4 −1800%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +338%	8−9 −338%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
Forza Horizon 5	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	17 +113%	8−9 −113%
Valorant	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−11	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	10−11	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +1233%	3−4 −1233%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8	0−1
World of Tanks	55−60 +5800%	1−2 −5800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14	0−1
Metro Exodus	14−16	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Valorant	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	5−6	0−1
Dota 2	18−20 +26.7%	14−16 −26.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +20%	14−16 −20%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +20%	14−16 −20%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	5−6	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Dota 2	18−20 +26.7%	14−16 −26.7%
Far Cry 5	10−11	0−1
Fortnite	8−9	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	10−11	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	5−6	0−1
Valorant	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%

This is how Pro 555 and GT 330M compete in popular games:

Pro 555 is 1300% faster in 900p
Pro 555 is 88% faster in 1080p
Pro 555 is 1500% faster in 4K

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

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 555 is 5800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Pro 555 surpassed GT 330M in all 32 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.62	0.52
Recency	5 June 2017	10 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	23 Watt

Pro 555 has a 1365.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

GT 330M, on the other hand, has 226.1% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 555 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 330M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 555 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GT 330M is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.