GeForce MX330 vs Radeon HD 6750M

Place in the ranking	841	579
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	4.80	43.51
Architecture	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Whistler	GP108
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	4 January 2011 (14 years ago)	10 February 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	480	384
Core clock speed	600 MHz	1531 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1594 MHz
Number of transistors	716 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	14.40	38.26
Floating-point processing power	0.576 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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-A (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	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 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 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.2 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.0	6.4
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	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 6750M 2.44

GeForce MX330 6.32
+159%

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 6750M 937

GeForce MX330 2429
+159%

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.

HD 6750M 1159

GeForce MX330 4834
+317%

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:

900p	21 −138%	50−55 +138%
Full HD	24 +4.3%	23 −4.3%
4K	9−10 −167%	24 +167%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −40%	14−16 +40%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −117%	12−14 +117%
Elden Ring	4−5 −325%	16−18 +325%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 −380%	24 +380%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −40%	14−16 +40%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +20%	5 −20%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −117%	24−27 +117%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −700%	24 +700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 −189%	26 +189%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 −300%	20−22 +300%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −40%	14−16 +40%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +100%	3 −100%
Dota 2	6−7 −283%	23 +283%
Elden Ring	4−5 −325%	16−18 +325%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −193%	44 +193%
Fortnite	12−14 −185%	35−40 +185%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −117%	24−27 +117%
Grand Theft Auto V	6−7 −267%	21−24 +267%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −267%	11 +267%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 −130%	53 +130%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 −100%	18−20 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −100%	20−22 +100%
World of Tanks	45−50 −120%	95−100 +120%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 −120%	11 +120%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −40%	14−16 +40%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +100%	3 −100%
Dota 2	6−7 −967%	64 +967%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −93.3%	27−30 +93.3%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −117%	24−27 +117%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 −126%	50−55 +126%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Grand Theft Auto V	0−1	6−7
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16−18 −118%	35−40 +118%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
World of Tanks	16−18 −188%	45−50 +188%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1000%	10−12 +1000%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −85.7%	12−14 +85.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Valorant	9−10 −88.9%	16−18 +88.9%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
Elden Ring	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −13.3%	16−18 +13.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −13.3%	16−18 +13.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Dota 2	16−18 −50%	24 +50%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Fortnite	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Valorant	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Valorant

18−20

+0%

18−20

+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Valorant

+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Valorant

18−20

+0%

18−20

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

4K
High Preset

Metro Exodus

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

This is how HD 6750M and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX330 is 138% faster in 900p
HD 6750M is 4% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX330 is 167% faster in 4K

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

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 6750M is 100% faster.
in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 1000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD 6750M is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
GeForce MX330 is ahead in 48 tests (80%)
there's a draw in 9 tests (15%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.44	6.32
Recency	4 January 2011	10 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	10 Watt

GeForce MX330 has a 159% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6750M in performance tests.

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