Quadro FX 880M vs Radeon R5 M330

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 M330 with Quadro FX 880M, including specs and performance data.

R5 M330
2015
4 GB DDR3, 18 Watt
1.54
+166%

R5 M330 outperforms FX 880M by a whopping 166% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9691206
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.971.16
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameExoGT216
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date5 May 2015 (9 years ago)7 January 2010 (14 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 cores32048
Compute units5no data
Core clock speed955 MHz550 MHz
Boost clock speed1030 MHzno data
Number of transistors690 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate20.608.800
Floating-point processing power0.6592 TFLOPS0.1162 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs2016

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz790 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s25.28 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.

HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.04.1
OpenGL4.43.3
OpenCLNot Listed1.1
Vulkan+N/A
Mantle+-
CUDA-1.2

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.

R5 M330 1.54
+166%
FX 880M 0.58

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.

R5 M330 595
+167%
FX 880M 223

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 HD9
−111%
19
+111%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+30%
10−11
−30%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how R5 M330 and FX 880M compete in popular games:

  • FX 880M is 111% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R5 M330 is 700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R5 M330 is ahead in 33 tests (94%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.54 0.58
Recency 5 May 2015 7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 35 Watt

R5 M330 has a 165.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 94.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R5 M330 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 880M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 M330 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 880M 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.


AMD Radeon R5 M330
Radeon R5 M330
NVIDIA Quadro FX 880M
Quadro FX 880M

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.


2.9 1023 votes

Rate Radeon R5 M330 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 41 vote

Rate Quadro FX 880M 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.