GeForce MX330 vs Radeon R7 370

Place in the ranking	413	580
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.57	no data
Power efficiency	7.34	43.61
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Trinidad	GP108
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	18 June 2015 (9 years ago)	10 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1024	384
Core clock speed	no data	1531 MHz
Boost clock speed	975 MHz	1594 MHz
Number of transistors	2,800 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	110 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	62.40	38.26
Floating-point processing power	1.997 TFLOPS	1.224 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	64	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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	152 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	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	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	975 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	179.2 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no data
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
VCE	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data
Optimus	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
Mantle	+	-
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. 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.

R7 370 11.70
+85.1%

GeForce MX330 6.32

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.

R7 370 4499
+85.2%

GeForce MX330 2429

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.

R7 370 8519
+76.2%

GeForce MX330 4834

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R7 370 5961
+58.5%

GeForce MX330 3762

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.

R7 370 39809
+92%

GeForce MX330 20729

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.

R7 370 323114
+32.6%

GeForce MX330 243721

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	47 +104%	23 −104%
1440p	57 +90%	30−35 −90%
4K	20 −20%	24 +20%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.17	no data
1440p	2.61	no data
4K	7.45	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +50%	14−16 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +76.9%	12−14 −76.9%
Elden Ring	30−35 +100%	16−18 −100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +58.3%	24 −58.3%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +50%	14−16 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +360%	5 −360%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +80.8%	24−27 −80.8%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +33.3%	24 −33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +15.4%	26 −15.4%
Valorant	35 +84.2%	18−20 −84.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +90%	20−22 −90%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +50%	14−16 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +667%	3 −667%
Dota 2	29 +26.1%	23 −26.1%
Elden Ring	30−35 +100%	16−18 −100%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +4.5%	44 −4.5%
Fortnite	65−70 +81.1%	35−40 −81.1%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +80.8%	24−27 −80.8%
Grand Theft Auto V	44 +100%	21−24 −100%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +191%	11 −191%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55 +3.8%	53 −3.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	37 +85%	20−22 −85%
Valorant	45−50 +200%	15 −200%
World of Tanks	160−170 +63.6%	95−100 −63.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +245%	11 −245%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +50%	14−16 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +667%	3 −667%
Dota 2	40−45 −52.4%	64 +52.4%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +58.6%	27−30 −58.6%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +80.8%	24−27 −80.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27 −92.6%	50−55 +92.6%
Valorant	20 +5.3%	18−20 −5.3%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 +150%	6−7 −150%
Elden Ring	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 +73%	35−40 −73%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
World of Tanks	81 +76.1%	45−50 −76.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +109%	10−12 −109%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +100%	12−14 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +145%	10−12 −145%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +200%	8−9 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
Valorant	17 +0%	16−18 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Dota 2	21−24 +29.4%	16−18 −29.4%
Elden Ring	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +29.4%	16−18 −29.4%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	37 +106%	18−20 −106%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +29.4%	16−18 −29.4%
World of Tanks	45 +87.5%	24−27 −87.5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Dota 2	21−24 −9.1%	24 +9.1%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Fortnite	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +150%	6−7 −150%
Valorant	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%

This is how R7 370 and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

R7 370 is 104% faster in 1080p
R7 370 is 90% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX330 is 20% faster in 4K

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

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R7 370 is 667% faster.
in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 93% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R7 370 is ahead in 57 tests (93%)
GeForce MX330 is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	11.70	6.32
Recency	18 June 2015	10 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	110 Watt	10 Watt