GeForce MX330 vs GTX 1650 SUPER
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER with GeForce MX330, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms MX330 by a whopping 319% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 208 | 577 |
| Place by popularity | 59 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 18.09 | 43.12 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | GP108 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 November 2019 (5 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 | 1280 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1530 MHz | 1531 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1725 MHz | 1594 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 138.0 | 38.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.416 TFLOPS | 1.224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 80 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Multi Monitor | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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 HD | 69
+214%
| 22
−214%
|
| 1440p | 35
+338%
| 8−9
−338%
|
| 4K | 21
−14.3%
| 24
+14.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 63
+530%
|
10−11
−530%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 55−60
+200%
|
19
−200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 53
+489%
|
9
−489%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+378%
|
18−20
−378%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 50−55
+391%
|
11
−391%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+186%
|
21
−186%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 65−70
+152%
|
27
−152%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+268%
|
40−45
−268%
|
| Hitman 3 | 62
+288%
|
16
−288%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 120−130
+1.7%
|
118
−1.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 69
+156%
|
27
−156%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 84
+223%
|
26
−223%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 90−95
+309%
|
21−24
−309%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 180
+125%
|
80
−125%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 55−60
+159%
|
22
−159%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 26
+225%
|
8
−225%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+378%
|
18−20
−378%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 50−55
+440%
|
10
−440%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+233%
|
18
−233%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 65−70
+258%
|
19
−258%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+268%
|
40−45
−268%
|
| Hitman 3 | 59
+293%
|
15
−293%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 120−130
+13.2%
|
106
−13.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 82
+290%
|
21
−290%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+240%
|
20
−240%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 101
+359%
|
21−24
−359%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+180%
|
20−22
−180%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 180
+140%
|
75
−140%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 55−60
+714%
|
7
−714%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 15
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 50−55
+1250%
|
4
−1250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+400%
|
12
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+844%
|
16
−844%
|
| Hitman 3 | 53
+308%
|
13
−308%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 83
+419%
|
16
−419%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 83
+277%
|
21−24
−277%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50
+317%
|
12
−317%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21
−143%
|
50−55
+143%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 66
+633%
|
9
−633%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+317%
|
12−14
−317%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30
+350%
|
6−7
−350%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+655%
|
20−22
−655%
|
| Hitman 3 | 34
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 60
+329%
|
14−16
−329%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+817%
|
6−7
−817%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 60
+2900%
|
2−3
−2900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+560%
|
5−6
−560%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 164
+310%
|
40−45
−310%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 44
+300%
|
10−12
−300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Hitman 3 | 34
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 130−140
+688%
|
16−18
−688%
|
| Metro Exodus | 32
+967%
|
3−4
−967%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 32
+967%
|
3−4
−967%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+500%
|
6−7
−500%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
This is how GTX 1650 SUPER and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 SUPER is 214% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 SUPER is 338% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX330 is 14% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 SUPER is 2900% faster.
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 143% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead in 70 tests (99%)
- GeForce MX330 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 26.38 | 6.29 |
| Recency | 22 November 2019 | 10 February 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 10 Watt |
GTX 1650 SUPER has a 319.4% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce MX330, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, and 900% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX330 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is a desktop card while GeForce MX330 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
