GeForce MX330 vs Quadro K4100M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K4100M with GeForce MX330, including specs and performance data.

K4100M
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
7.15
+13.7%

K4100M outperforms MX330 by a moderate 14% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking547577
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.51no data
Power efficiency4.9043.12
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGK104GP108
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)10 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,499 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 cores1152384
Core clock speed706 MHz1531 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1594 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate67.7838.26
Floating-point processing power1.627 TFLOPS1.224 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth102.4 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
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus++
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.54.6
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.

K4100M 7.15
+13.7%
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.

K4100M 2755
+13.7%
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.

K4100M 4957
+2.5%
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.

K4100M 3654
GeForce MX330 3762
+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.

K4100M 24685
+19.1%
GeForce MX330 20729

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.

K4100M 8855
GeForce MX330 10707
+20.9%

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.

K4100M 7058
GeForce MX330 10022
+42%

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.

K4100M 6821
GeForce MX330 9906
+45.2%

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 HD48
+118%
22
−118%
4K13
−84.6%
24
+84.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p31.23no data
4K115.31no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
−5.6%
19
+5.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+0%
9
+0%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+36.4%
11
−36.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−31.3%
21
+31.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 20−22
−35%
27
+35%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+14.6%
40−45
−14.6%
Hitman 3 14−16
−14.3%
16
+14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
−181%
118
+181%
Metro Exodus 20−22
−35%
27
+35%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
−30%
26
+30%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+9.1%
21−24
−9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
−48.1%
80
+48.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
−22.2%
22
+22.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+12.5%
8
−12.5%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+50%
10
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−12.5%
18
+12.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 20−22
+5.3%
19
−5.3%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+14.6%
40−45
−14.6%
Hitman 3 14−16
−7.1%
15
+7.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
−152%
106
+152%
Metro Exodus 20−22
−5%
21
+5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+0%
20
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+9.1%
21−24
−9.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 67
+235%
20−22
−235%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
−38.9%
75
+38.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+157%
7
−157%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+275%
4
−275%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+33.3%
12
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+194%
16
−194%
Hitman 3 14−16
+7.7%
13
−7.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+163%
16
−163%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+9.1%
21−24
−9.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+83.3%
12
−83.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+5.9%
50−55
−5.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+122%
9
−122%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+25%
20−22
−25%
Hitman 3 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+12.5%
40−45
−12.5%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Hitman 3 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+35.3%
16−18
−35.3%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

This is how K4100M and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

  • K4100M is 118% faster in 1080p
  • GeForce MX330 is 85% 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 K4100M is 275% faster.
  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 181% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K4100M is ahead in 49 tests (69%)
  • GeForce MX330 is ahead in 14 tests (20%)
  • there's a draw in 8 tests (11%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.15 6.29
Recency 23 July 2013 10 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 10 Watt

K4100M has a 13.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX330, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K4100M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX330 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K4100M 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 K4100M
Quadro K4100M
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.


4.2 91 vote

Rate Quadro K4100M 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.