GeForce GT 330M vs MX110

Place in the ranking	713	1217
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	8.54	1.68
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GM108S	GT216
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	17 November 2017 (7 years ago)	10 January 2010 (15 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	256	48
Core clock speed	978 MHz	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	1006 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,020 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	23 Watt
Texture fill rate	16.10	10.00
Floating-point processing power	0.5151 TFLOPS	0.06528 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	182
ROPs	8	8
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	no data	medium sized
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x4	MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	None	None
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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth	40.1 GB/s	25.28 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	Portable Device Dependent	HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPort
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
Power management	no data	8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.7 (5.1)	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	3.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.3	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.

GeForce MX110 3.72
+564%

GT 330M 0.56

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.

GeForce MX110 1429
+562%

GT 330M 216

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.

GeForce MX110 9124
+243%

GT 330M 2658

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	65−70 +550%	10 −550%
Full HD	16 −6.3%	17 +6.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Elden Ring	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Metro Exodus	10 +900%	1−2 −900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	13 +160%	5−6 −160%
Valorant	5−6	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Dota 2	21 +600%	3−4 −600%
Elden Ring	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Far Cry 5	23 +229%	7−8 −229%
Fortnite	17	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Grand Theft Auto V	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	34 +325%	8−9 −325%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Valorant	5−6	0−1
World of Tanks	45 +165%	16−18 −165%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Dota 2	33 +725%	4−5 −725%
Far Cry 5	15 +114%	7−8 −114%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8 +0%	8−9 +0%
Valorant	5−6	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	2−3	0−1
Elden Ring	4−5	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	2−3	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +767%	3−4 −767%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4	0−1
World of Tanks	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Valorant	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Elden Ring	2−3	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Far Cry 5	4−5	0−1
Fortnite	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Valorant	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

This is how GeForce MX110 and GT 330M compete in popular games:

GeForce MX110 is 550% faster in 900p
GT 330M is 6% faster in 1080p

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

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX110 is 2500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX110 is ahead in 30 tests (91%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.72	0.56
Recency	17 November 2017	10 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	23 Watt

GeForce MX110 has a 564.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 330M, on the other hand, has 30.4% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX110 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 330M in performance tests.

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