GeForce MX330 vs 8600M GT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8600M GT and GeForce MX330, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX330 outperforms 8600M GT by a whopping 2060% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1349 | 590 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.00 | 42.99 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | G84 | GP108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 31 December 2007 (17 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 | 32 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 1531 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1594 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 289 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.600 | 38.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0608 TFLOPS | 1.224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 16 | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-II | 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 | DDR2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 400 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 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 | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | 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.
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.
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 | 1−2
−2200%
| 23
+2200%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−2200%
| 23
+2200%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−933%
|
31
+933%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−214%
|
21−24
+214%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−354%
|
118
+354%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−654%
|
95−100
+654%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−678%
|
70
+678%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−633%
|
22
+633%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−214%
|
21−24
+214%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−375%
|
19
+375%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−308%
|
106
+308%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−611%
|
64
+611%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−433%
|
16
+433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−214%
|
21−24
+214%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−200%
|
12
+200%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−158%
|
65−70
+158%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1133%
|
35−40
+1133%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 9−10 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 12−14 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| 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%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+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%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
This is how 8600M GT and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX330 is 2200% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX330 is 2200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 1400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX330 is ahead in 28 tests (49%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (51%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.25 | 5.40 |
| Recency | 31 December 2007 | 10 February 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 10 Watt |
GeForce MX330 has a 2060% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600M GT 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.
