NVS 5200M vs GeForce GT 330M

Place in the ranking	1207	1020
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.69	3.68
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GT216	GF117
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	10 January 2010 (14 years ago)	1 June 2012 (12 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	48	96
Core clock speed	625 MHz	625 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	10.00	10.00
Floating-point processing power	0.06528 TFLOPS	0.24 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	182	no data
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	16	16

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	medium sized
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	MXM
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.28 GB/s	14.4 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	HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPort	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	-	+
Power management	8.0	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.1	5.1
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	+	+

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.

GT 330M 0.56

NVS 5200M 1.33
+138%

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 330M 216

NVS 5200M 512
+137%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GT 330M 2658

NVS 5200M 4268
+60.6%

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:

900p	10 −110%	21−24 +110%
Full HD	17 +70%	10 −70%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−33.3%

4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Hitman 3	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −10%	30−35 +10%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Hitman 3	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −10%	10−12 +10%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −10%	30−35 +10%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Hitman 3	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −10%	10−12 +10%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −10%	30−35 +10%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−100%

2−3
+100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	1−2
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−33.3%

4−5
+33.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−50%

3−4
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	0−1	0−1

This is how GT 330M and NVS 5200M compete in popular games:

NVS 5200M is 110% faster in 900p
GT 330M is 70% faster in 1080p

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the NVS 5200M is 500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

NVS 5200M is ahead in 32 tests (70%)
there's a draw in 14 tests (30%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.56	1.33
Recency	10 January 2010	1 June 2012
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	25 Watt

GT 330M has 8.7% lower power consumption.

NVS 5200M, on the other hand, has a 137.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The NVS 5200M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 330M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 330M is a notebook graphics card while NVS 5200M is a mobile workstation one.

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