GeForce MX330 vs GT 755M

Place in the ranking	666	574
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	6.06	43.61
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GK107	GP108
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	25 June 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	980 MHz	1531 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1594 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	31.36	38.26
Floating-point processing power	0.7526 TFLOPS	1.224 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	2 GB
Standard memory configuration	GDDR5	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1350 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	86.4 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 755M 4.38

GeForce MX330 6.30
+43.8%

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 755M 1688

GeForce MX330 2430
+44%

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 755M 2801

GeForce MX330 4834
+72.6%

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 755M 2106

GeForce MX330 3762
+78.7%

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 755M 14967

GeForce MX330 20729
+38.5%

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 755M 4931

GeForce MX330 10697
+117%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

GT 755M 4226

GeForce MX330 10022
+137%

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	56 −42.9%	80−85 +42.9%
Full HD	23 +4.5%	22 −4.5%
4K	14−16 −64.3%	23 +64.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9

−25%

10−11
+25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −58.3%	19 +58.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −125%	9 +125%
Battlefield 5	10−11 −80%	18−20 +80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −10%	11 +10%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −133%	21 +133%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −125%	27 +125%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −51.9%	40−45 +51.9%
Hitman 3	10−11 −60%	16 +60%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −307%	118 +307%
Metro Exodus	9−10 −200%	27 +200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 −136%	26 +136%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −37.5%	21−24 +37.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −81.8%	80 +81.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −83.3%	22 +83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −100%	8 +100%
Battlefield 5	10−11 −80%	18−20 +80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −100%	18 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −58.3%	19 +58.3%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −51.9%	40−45 +51.9%
Hitman 3	10−11 −50%	15 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −266%	106 +266%
Metro Exodus	9−10 −133%	21 +133%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 −81.8%	20 +81.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −37.5%	21−24 +37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −17.6%	20−22 +17.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −70.5%	75 +70.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +71.4%	7 −71.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −33.3%	12 +33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +68.8%	16 −68.8%
Hitman 3	10−11 −30%	13 +30%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +81.3%	16 −81.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −37.5%	21−24 +37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +41.7%	12 −41.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −15.9%	50−55 +15.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12
+22.2%

−22.2%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 −50%	12−14 +50%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −186%	20−22 +186%
Hitman 3	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −40%	14−16 +40%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −48.1%	40−45 +48.1%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

−37.5%

10−12
+37.5%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Hitman 3	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 −750%	16−18 +750%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	3−4

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

−40%

7−8
+40%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

This is how GT 755M and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX330 is 43% faster in 900p
GT 755M is 5% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX330 is 64% 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 755M is 150% faster.
in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 750% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 755M is ahead in 6 tests (9%)
GeForce MX330 is ahead in 60 tests (86%)
there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.38	6.30
Recency	25 June 2013	10 February 2020
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	10 Watt

GeForce MX330 has a 43.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 755M in performance tests.

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