GeForce MX330 vs Radeon HD 6570

Place in the ranking	1000	577
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.07	no data
Power efficiency	1.63	43.10
Architecture	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Turks	GP108
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	19 April 2011 (13 years ago)	10 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$79	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 cores	480	384
Core clock speed	no data	1531 MHz
Boost clock speed	650 MHz	1594 MHz
Number of transistors	716 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	15.60	38.26
Floating-point processing power	0.624 TFLOPS	1.224 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	24	24

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).

Bus support	PCIe 2.1 x16	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	168 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.8 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire	+	-
UVD	+	-
Optimus	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 11	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.0	6.4
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
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.

HD 6570 1.43

GeForce MX330 6.29
+340%

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.

HD 6570 550

GeForce MX330 2424
+341%

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.

HD 6570 850

GeForce MX330 3762
+343%

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	5−6 −340%	22 +340%
4K	5−6 −380%	24 +380%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	15.80	no data
4K	15.80	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11

+0%

10−11

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	19 +0%	19 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9 +0%	9 +0%
Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	11 +0%	11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	21 +0%	21 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	27 +0%	27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Hitman 3	16 +0%	16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	118 +0%	118 +0%
Metro Exodus	27 +0%	27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	26 +0%	26 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80 +0%	80 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	22 +0%	22 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8 +0%	8 +0%
Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10 +0%	10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	18 +0%	18 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	19 +0%	19 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Hitman 3	15 +0%	15 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	106 +0%	106 +0%
Metro Exodus	21 +0%	21 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20 +0%	20 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75 +0%	75 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7 +0%	7 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4 +0%	4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	12 +0%	12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16 +0%	16 +0%
Hitman 3	13 +0%	13 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16 +0%	16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12 +0%	12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

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

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

+0%

10−12

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
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

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	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
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 HD 6570 and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX330 is 340% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX330 is 380% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 71 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.43	6.29
Recency	19 April 2011	10 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	10 Watt

HD 6570 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX330, on the other hand, has a 339.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6570 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 6570 is a desktop card while GeForce MX330 is a notebook one.

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