GeForce MX330 vs Radeon R6 (Mullins)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R6 (Mullins) and GeForce MX330, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX330 outperforms R6 (Mullins) by a whopping 854% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1247 | 631 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 42.91 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Mullins | GP108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 April 2014 (11 years ago) | 10 February 2020 (5 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 | 128 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1531 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1594 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 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 | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 48.06 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 2−3
−1000%
| 22
+1000%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−1050%
| 23
+1050%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 23 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−520%
|
31
+520%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−321%
|
118
+321%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−433%
|
95−100
+433%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−483%
|
70
+483%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 15 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−340%
|
22
+340%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1000%
|
11
+1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−217%
|
19
+217%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−279%
|
106
+279%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−433%
|
64
+433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 14 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−220%
|
16
+220%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−100%
|
12
+100%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−136%
|
65−70
+136%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−2100%
|
40−45
+2100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−533%
|
35−40
+533%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−867%
|
27−30
+867%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| God of War | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how R6 (Mullins) and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX330 is 1000% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX330 is 1050% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 2100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX330 performs better in 32 tests (54%)
- there's a draw in 27 tests (46%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.59 | 5.63 |
| Recency | 29 April 2014 | 10 February 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
GeForce MX330 has a 854.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R6 (Mullins) in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
