GeForce MX330 vs GT 320M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 320M and GeForce MX330, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 320M
2009
512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.27

MX330 outperforms GT 320M by a whopping 2226% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1359589
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.3243.03
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameG96CGP108
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 June 2009 (15 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 cores32384
Core clock speed500 MHz1531 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1594 MHz
Number of transistors314 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate8.00038.26
Floating-point processing power0.08 TFLOPS1.224 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs1624

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-IIPCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 amount512 MB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo 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.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA1.16.1

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.

GT 320M 0.27
GeForce MX330 6.28
+2226%

  • Passmark

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.

GT 320M 105
GeForce MX330 2415
+2200%

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 HD0−123
4K0−123

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
Atomic Heart 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−71.4%
12−14
+71.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
Atomic Heart 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−71.4%
12−14
+71.4%
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%
Atomic Heart 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−71.4%
12−14
+71.4%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
−717%
95−100
+717%
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 3−4
−533%
19
+533%
Valorant 24−27
−308%
106
+308%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−71.4%
12−14
+71.4%
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 3−4
−300%
12
+300%
Valorant 24−27
−162%
65−70
+162%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−3600%
35−40
+3600%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 5−6
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Fortnite 0−1 12−14
Atomic Heart 0−1 5−6
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Valorant 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Fortnite 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Battlefield 5 29
+0%
29
+0%
Far Cry 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Fortnite 63
+0%
63
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Battlefield 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Far Cry 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
Fortnite 34
+0%
34
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 11
+0%
11
+0%
Battlefield 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Far Cry 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Fortnite 21
+0%
21
+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%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 24
+0%
24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

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

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 3600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce MX330 is ahead in 33 tests (52%)
  • there's a draw in 31 test (48%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.27 6.28
Recency 15 June 2009 10 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 10 Watt

GeForce MX330 has a 2225.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 40% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 320M in performance tests.

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 GT 320M
GeForce GT 320M
NVIDIA GeForce MX330
GeForce MX330

Other comparisons

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.


3.3
132 votes

Rate GeForce GT 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6
2242 votes

Rate GeForce MX330 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 320M or GeForce MX330, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.