GeForce MX330 vs Quadro K2000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2000M with GeForce MX330, including specs and performance data.

K2000M
2012
2 GB DDR3, 55 Watt
2.62

MX330 outperforms K2000M by a whopping 141% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking809571
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.30no data
Power efficiency3.4445.53
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGK107GP108
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)10 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$265.27 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 cores384384
Core clock speed745 MHz1531 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1594 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate23.8438.26
Floating-point processing power0.5722 TFLOPS1.224 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs3224

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
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 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 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
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.

K2000M 2.62
GeForce MX330 6.31
+141%

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.

K2000M 1012
GeForce MX330 2434
+141%

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.

K2000M 1798
GeForce MX330 4834
+169%

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.

K2000M 1046
GeForce MX330 3762
+260%

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.

K2000M 8766
GeForce MX330 20729
+136%

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.

K2000M 3062
GeForce MX330 10684
+249%

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.

K2000M 2616
GeForce MX330 10022
+283%

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.

K2000M 2385
GeForce MX330 9906
+315%

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 HD24
+9.1%
22
−9.1%
4K9−10
−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 4−5
−350%
18−20
+350%
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 21−24
−462%
118
+462%
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 4−5
−350%
18−20
+350%
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 21−24
−405%
106
+405%
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 21−24
+31.3%
16
−31.3%
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 K2000M and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

  • K2000M is 9% 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 K2000M 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:

  • K2000M 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 2.62 6.31
Recency 1 June 2012 10 February 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 10 Watt

GeForce MX330 has a 140.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 450% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2000M 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.

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 Quadro K2000M
Quadro K2000M
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.


3.6 33 votes

Rate Quadro K2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 2139 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.