Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs GeForce MX330

Place in the ranking	577	624
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	43.12	14.04
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code name	GP108	DG1
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	10 February 2020 (4 years ago)	31 October 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	768
Core clock speed	1531 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	1594 MHz	1650 MHz
Number of transistors	1,800 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	10 Watt	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	38.26	79.20
Floating-point processing power	1.224 TFLOPS	2.534 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	24
TMUs	24	48

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 4.0 x4
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	LPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	2133 MHz
Memory bandwidth	48.06 GB/s	68.26 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

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.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2
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.

GeForce MX330 6.29
+22.9%

Iris Xe MAX Graphics 5.12

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 MX330 2424
+23%

Iris Xe MAX Graphics 1971

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.

GeForce MX330 4834

Iris Xe MAX Graphics 8214
+69.9%

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.

GeForce MX330 3762

Iris Xe MAX Graphics 6333
+68.3%

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.

GeForce MX330 20729

Iris Xe MAX Graphics 36993
+78.5%

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.

GeForce MX330 243721
+37.4%

Iris Xe MAX Graphics 177442

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GeForce MX330 1160

Iris Xe MAX Graphics 1743
+50.3%

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	22 −22.7%	27 +22.7%
1440p	18−21 +5.9%	17 −5.9%
4K	24 +60%	15 −60%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11

−80%

18−20
+80%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	19 −42.1%	27−30 +42.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9 −111%	19 +111%
Battlefield 5	18−20 −100%	35−40 +100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	11 −109%	21−24 +109%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −80%	18−20 +80%
Far Cry 5	21 −28.6%	27−30 +28.6%
Far Cry New Dawn	27 −18.5%	30−35 +18.5%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −85.4%	75−80 +85.4%
Hitman 3	16 −50%	24 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	118 +93.4%	60−65 −93.4%
Metro Exodus	27 −111%	57 +111%
Red Dead Redemption 2	26 −26.9%	33 +26.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 −68.2%	35−40 +68.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80 +17.6%	65−70 −17.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	22 −22.7%	27−30 +22.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8 +33.3%	6 −33.3%
Battlefield 5	18−20 −100%	35−40 +100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10 −130%	21−24 +130%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −80%	18−20 +80%
Far Cry 5	18 −50%	27−30 +50%
Far Cry New Dawn	19 −68.4%	30−35 +68.4%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −85.4%	75−80 +85.4%
Hitman 3	15 −53.3%	23 +53.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	106 +73.8%	60−65 −73.8%
Metro Exodus	21 −105%	43 +105%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20 −60%	30−35 +60%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 −50%	33 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 −45%	27−30 +45%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75 +10.3%	65−70 −10.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7 −286%	27−30 +286%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4 −475%	21−24 +475%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −80%	18−20 +80%
Far Cry 5	12 −125%	27−30 +125%
Forza Horizon 4	16 −375%	75−80 +375%
Hitman 3	13 −61.5%	21 +61.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16 −62.5%	26 +62.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 −31.8%	29 +31.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12 −50%	18 +50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 −33.3%	65−70 +33.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

−178%

25
+178%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −83.3%	21−24 +83.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 −70%	16−18 +70%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −83.3%	10−12 +83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −100%	12−14 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −85.7%	12−14 +85.7%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 −170%	50−55 +170%
Hitman 3	10−11 −40%	14−16 +40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −64.3%	21−24 +64.3%
Metro Exodus	6−7 −200%	18−20 +200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 −900%	20 +900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −120%	10−12 +120%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −80%	70−75 +80%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

−72.7%

18−20
+72.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 −120%	10−12 +120%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Hitman 3	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −206%	50−55 +206%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −267%	11 +267%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	1−2
Far Cry 5	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −150%	14−16 +150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2 −1000%	11 +1000%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

−57.1%

10−12
+57.1%

This is how GeForce MX330 and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:

Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 23% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX330 is 6% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX330 is 60% faster in 4K

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

in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 93% faster.
in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 1000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX330 is ahead in 5 tests (7%)
Iris Xe MAX Graphics is ahead in 66 tests (93%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.29	5.12
Recency	10 February 2020	31 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	10 Watt	25 Watt

GeForce MX330 has a 22.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 150% lower power consumption.

Iris Xe MAX Graphics, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe MAX Graphics in performance tests.

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