GeForce MX330 vs GT 735M

Place in the ranking	936	575
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	3.55	43.86
Architecture	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GK208	GP108
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 April 2013 (11 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 cores	384	384
Core clock speed	575 MHz	1531 MHz
Boost clock speed	889 MHz	1594 MHz
Number of transistors	915 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	18.40	38.26
Floating-point processing power	0.4416 TFLOPS	1.224 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	32	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	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	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	DDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	2 GB
Standard memory configuration	DDR3	no data
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 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
eDP 1.2 signal support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
LVDS signal support	Up to 1920x1200	no data
VGA аnalog display support	Up to 2048x1536	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP content protection	+	-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI	+	-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming	+	-

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support	+	-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	+
3D Vision / 3DTV Play	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2.131
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.

GT 735M 1.68

GeForce MX330 6.29
+274%

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 735M 650

GeForce MX330 2428
+274%

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.

GT 735M 1713

GeForce MX330 4834
+182%

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.

GT 735M 1024

GeForce MX330 3762
+268%

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.

GT 735M 6757

GeForce MX330 20729
+207%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GT 735M 3749

GeForce MX330 10697
+185%

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	17 −253%	60−65 +253%
Full HD	20 −10%	22 +10%
4K	6−7 −283%	23 +283%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−150%

10−11
+150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −217%	19 +217%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −120%	11 +120%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −950%	21 +950%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −575%	27 +575%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −720%	40−45 +720%
Hitman 3	6−7 −167%	16 +167%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −638%	118 +638%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −767%	26 +767%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −144%	21−24 +144%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −135%	80 +135%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −267%	22 +267%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −100%	10 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −800%	18 +800%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −375%	19 +375%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −720%	40−45 +720%
Hitman 3	6−7 −150%	15 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −563%	106 +563%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −567%	20 +567%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −144%	21−24 +144%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −66.7%	20−22 +66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −121%	75 +121%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −16.7%	7 +16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −500%	12 +500%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −220%	16 +220%
Hitman 3	6−7 −117%	13 +117%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −144%	21−24 +144%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −50%	50−55 +50%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−200%

9
+200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Hitman 3	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −180%	14−16 +180%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 −344%	40−45 +344%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−175%

10−12
+175%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−300%

4−5
+300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	3−4
Far Cry 5	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	2−3

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−133%

7−8
+133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9 +0%	9 +0%
Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Metro Exodus	27 +0%	27 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8 +0%	8 +0%
Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Metro Exodus	21 +0%	21 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

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

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +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

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how GT 735M and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX330 is 253% faster in 900p
GeForce MX330 is 10% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX330 is 283% faster in 4K

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

in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 735M is 25% faster.
in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 950% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 735M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
GeForce MX330 is ahead in 48 tests (70%)
there's a draw in 20 tests (29%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.68	6.29
Recency	1 April 2013	10 February 2020
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	10 Watt

GeForce MX330 has a 274.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 230% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 735M in performance tests.

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