GeForce MX330 vs Quadro 3000M

Place in performance ranking	824	574
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.21	no data
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Fermi	N17S-LP / N17S-G3
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)	20 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$398.96	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	240	384
Core clock speed	450 MHz	1531 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1594 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	25 Watt (12 - 25 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	18.00	38.26
Floating-point performance	0.432 gflops	1.224 gflops

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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	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
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	625 MHz	7000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 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

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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	2.1	6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

Quadro 3000M 2.57

GeForce MX330 6.30
+145%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Quadro 3000M 993

GeForce MX330 2432
+145%

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.

Quadro 3000M 1539

GeForce MX330 4834
+214%

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.

Quadro 3000M 3807

GeForce MX330 10886
+186%

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	51 +122%	23 −122%
4K	9−10 −156%	23 +156%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6

−100%

10−11
+100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −138%	19 +138%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	9
Battlefield 5	3−4 −500%	18−20 +500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −83.3%	11 +83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −320%	21 +320%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −286%	27 +286%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −215%	40−45 +215%
Hitman 3	7−8 −129%	16 +129%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −490%	118 +490%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −1250%	27 +1250%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −333%	26 +333%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −100%	21−24 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −111%	80 +111%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −175%	22 +175%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	8
Battlefield 5	3−4 −500%	18−20 +500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −66.7%	10 +66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −260%	18 +260%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −171%	19 +171%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −215%	40−45 +215%
Hitman 3	7−8 −114%	15 +114%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −430%	106 +430%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −950%	21 +950%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −233%	20 +233%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −100%	21−24 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −53.8%	20−22 +53.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −97.4%	75 +97.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +14.3%	7 −14.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	8−9
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +50%	4 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −140%	12 +140%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −23.1%	16 +23.1%
Hitman 3	7−8 −85.7%	13 +85.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 +25%	16 −25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −100%	21−24 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +8.3%	12 −8.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −34.2%	50−55 +34.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−50%

9
+50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Hitman 3	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −100%	14−16 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −167%	40−45 +167%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−83.3%

10−12
+83.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	2−3

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−75%

7−8
+75%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how Quadro 3000M and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

Quadro 3000M is 122% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX330 is 156% 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 Quadro 3000M is 50% faster.
in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 1250% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro 3000M is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
GeForce MX330 is ahead in 53 tests (79%)
there's a draw in 10 tests (15%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.57	6.30
Recency	22 February 2011	20 February 2020
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	25 Watt

GeForce MX330 has a 145.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce MX330 is a mobile workstation one.

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