GeForce MX330 vs GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q and GeForce MX330, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 60 Watt
22.87
+264%

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q outperforms MX330 by a whopping 264% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking246577
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation69.01no data
Power efficiency26.1343.12
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameTU116GP108
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date23 April 2019 (5 years ago)10 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1536384
Core clock speed1140 MHz1531 MHz
Boost clock speed1335 MHz1594 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)60 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate128.238.26
Floating-point processing power4.101 TFLOPS1.224 TFLOPS
ROPs4816
TMUs9624

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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 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 typeGDDR6GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB2 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.0 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 compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.56.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA7.56.1

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.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.87
+264%
GeForce MX330 6.29

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.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 8814
+264%
GeForce MX330 2424

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.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 17439
+261%
GeForce MX330 4834

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.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 13355
+255%
GeForce MX330 3762

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.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 63086
+204%
GeForce MX330 20729

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.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 306910
+25.9%
GeForce MX330 243721

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 5085
+338%
GeForce MX330 1160

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 HD78
+255%
22
−255%
4K31
+29.2%
24
−29.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.94no data
4K7.39no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+270%
10−11
−270%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 56
+195%
19
−195%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+333%
9
−333%
Battlefield 5 88
+389%
18−20
−389%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70
+536%
11
−536%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+270%
10−11
−270%
Far Cry 5 92
+338%
21
−338%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+122%
27
−122%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+234%
40−45
−234%
Hitman 3 45−50
+181%
16
−181%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
−10.3%
118
+10.3%
Metro Exodus 120
+344%
27
−344%
Red Dead Redemption 2 92
+254%
26
−254%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+250%
21−24
−250%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+22.5%
80
−22.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+127%
22
−127%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+388%
8
−388%
Battlefield 5 84
+367%
18−20
−367%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 66
+560%
10
−560%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+270%
10−11
−270%
Far Cry 5 77
+328%
18
−328%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+216%
19
−216%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+234%
40−45
−234%
Hitman 3 45−50
+200%
15
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+0.9%
106
−0.9%
Metro Exodus 95
+352%
21
−352%
Red Dead Redemption 2 74
+270%
20
−270%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+250%
21−24
−250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+150%
20−22
−150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+30.7%
75
−30.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 42
+500%
7
−500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+388%
8−9
−388%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50
+1150%
4
−1150%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+270%
10−11
−270%
Far Cry 5 54
+350%
12
−350%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+756%
16
−756%
Hitman 3 45−50
+246%
13
−246%
Horizon Zero Dawn 79
+394%
16
−394%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+250%
21−24
−250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 51
+325%
12
−325%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+92.2%
50−55
−92.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 72
+700%
9
−700%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+258%
12−14
−258%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+250%
10−11
−250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+333%
6−7
−333%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+271%
7−8
−271%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+550%
20−22
−550%
Hitman 3 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+236%
14−16
−236%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+617%
6−7
−617%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+2350%
2−3
−2350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+440%
5−6
−440%
Watch Dogs: Legion 130−140
+228%
40−45
−228%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+245%
10−12
−245%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+340%
5−6
−340%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+350%
4−5
−350%
Hitman 3 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+594%
16−18
−594%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+733%
3−4
−733%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+933%
3−4
−933%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+417%
6−7
−417%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+2600%
1−2
−2600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+186%
7−8
−186%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 255% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 29% faster in 4K

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

  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 2600% faster.
  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 10% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 70 tests (99%)
  • GeForce MX330 is ahead in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 22.87 6.29
Recency 23 April 2019 10 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 60 Watt 10 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has a 263.6% higher aggregate performance score, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce MX330, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months, and 500% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX330 in performance tests.


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

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 GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
NVIDIA GeForce MX330
GeForce MX330

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.4 538 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 2196 votes

Rate GeForce MX330 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.