GeForce MX330 vs G210M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce G210M and GeForce MX330, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce G210M
2009
Up to 1 GB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.30

MX330 outperforms G210M by a whopping 1997% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1327577
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.4743.12
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGT218GP108
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 June 2009 (15 years ago)10 February 2020 (4 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 cores16384
Core clock speed625 MHz1531 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1594 MHz
Number of transistors260 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate5.00038.26
Floating-point processing power0.048 TFLOPS1.224 TFLOPS
Gigaflops72no data
ROPs416
TMUs824

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 supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amountUp to 1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 500 (DDR2), Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/s48.06 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 ConnectorsDual Link DVIDisplayPortHDMISingle Link DVIVGANo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+
Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.4
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
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. 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.

GeForce G210M 0.30
GeForce MX330 6.29
+1997%

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.

GeForce G210M 116
GeForce MX330 2424
+1990%

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.

GeForce G210M 1805
GeForce MX330 20729
+1048%

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 HD15
−46.7%
22
+46.7%
4K1−2
−2300%
24
+2300%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−533%
19
+533%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−450%
11
+450%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Hitman 3 4−5
−300%
16
+300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1375%
118
+1375%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−450%
21−24
+450%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−186%
80
+186%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−633%
22
+633%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−400%
10
+400%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Hitman 3 4−5
−275%
15
+275%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1225%
106
+1225%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−450%
21−24
+450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−122%
20−22
+122%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−168%
75
+168%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−133%
7
+133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−100%
4
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Hitman 3 4−5
−225%
13
+225%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−100%
16
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−450%
21−24
+450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−33.3%
12
+33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−82.1%
50−55
+82.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 3−4
Hitman 3 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−600%
14−16
+600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−450%
10−12
+450%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 3−4

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9
+0%
9
+0%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27
+0%
27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 27
+0%
27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 26
+0%
26
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8
+0%
8
+0%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 19
+0%
19
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 21
+0%
21
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20
+0%
20
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16
+0%
16
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9
+0%
9
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hitman 3 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how GeForce G210M and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX330 is 47% faster in 1080p
  • GeForce MX330 is 2300% faster in 4K

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 1375% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce MX330 is ahead in 29 tests (42%)
  • there's a draw in 40 tests (58%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.30 6.29
Recency 15 June 2009 10 February 2020
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 10 Watt

GeForce MX330 has a 1996.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 40% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce G210M in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce G210M
GeForce G210M
NVIDIA GeForce MX330
GeForce MX330

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.8 78 votes

Rate GeForce G210M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 2196 votes

Rate GeForce MX330 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.