AMD Radeon 880M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and AMD Radeon 880M occupy the same percentile rank among all GPUs (43rd), yet their benchmark scores and architectural approaches could not be more different. The data shows a clear generational divide: the MX330 is a 2020-era discrete entry-level part built on a 14 nm Samsung process, while the 880M is a 2024 integrated GPU on TSMC's 4 nm node with RDNA 3.5 architecture. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical (8458 vs 8436, a 0.3% difference), but that averages away staggering differences in individual tests, where the 880M leads by margins of 74.8% to 77.5% in OpenCL and Vulkan compute workloads. This is a classic case of a modern integrated GPU outperforming an older discrete one in raw throughput, though the MX330's simplicity and lower power draw may appeal to specific use cases.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has a marginally higher average benchmark score of 8458, while the AMD Radeon 880M scores 8436. The delta between them is only 0.3%, placing them as direct rivals in the database's nearestRivals list.

Q: How do they compare in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M scores 31285 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the MX330's 7896. This gives the 880M a 74.8% advantage, making it roughly four times faster in this specific compute test.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M again dominates with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 40006 versus the MX330's 9019, a 77.5% lead. This is the largest margin in any head-to-head benchmark between the two.

Q: Are both GPUs considered integrated or discrete?

A: Both are classified as IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor) in terms of slot width. However, the MX330 is a discrete chip on a 74 mm² die, while the 880M is an integrated GPU within the Strix Point APU, sharing a 233 mm² die with other components.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M has 768 shading units, exactly double the MX330's 384. The 880M also features 12 ray tracing cores, which the MX330 lacks entirely.

Q: What is the production status of each?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 is listed as end-of-life, while the AMD Radeon 880M is marked as active production. The MX330 was released in February 2020, and the 880M in July 2024.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from opposite ends of the hardware spectrum. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 uses the GP108B chip based on the Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.3M per mm². This is a small, simple design optimized for low power consumption in thin laptops.

The AMD Radeon 880M, in contrast, is built on the Strix Point chip using the newer RDNA 3.5 architecture. It uses a 4 nm process at TSMC and integrates 34,000 million transistors across a 233 mm² die, achieving a density of 145.9M per mm² — roughly six times denser than the MX330. The 880M doubles the shading units (768 vs 384) and texture mapping units (48 vs 24), and it adds 12 ray tracing cores that the Pascal-based MX330 cannot offer. Both have 16 ROPs, but the 880M's pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s is nearly double the MX330's 25.50 GPixel/s. Texture rate tells a similar story: 139.2 GTexel/s for the 880M versus 38.26 GTexel/s for the MX330.

Compute capabilities diverge sharply. The 880M delivers 4.454 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and matches that with 4.454 TFLOPS FP16 (a 1:1 ratio), while the MX330 manages only 1,224.2 GFLOPS FP32 and a meager 19.13 GFLOPS FP16 (a 1:64 ratio). Memory architecture also differs fundamentally: the MX330 uses 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the 880M relies on system shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." The 880M also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the MX330 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x4. Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the 880M's DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) feature level surpasses the MX330's 12 (12_1).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks reveal an absolute rout in the 880M's favor. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon 880M scores 31285 against the MX330's 7896. That is a 74.8% deficit for the NVIDIA part, meaning the 880M is approximately four times faster in this compute workload. The gap is even wider in Geekbench Vulkan: 40006 for the 880M versus 9019 for the MX330, a 77.5% delta. These are not marginal improvements; they represent a completely different performance class.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a different story. The MX330's average of 8458 edges out the 880M's 8436 by a hair. This discrepancy arises because the head-to-head tests only cover two workloads (OpenCL and Vulkan), while the 880M's average includes ten different benchmarks, including several Passmark tests where it scores far lower (e.g., 31 in DirectX 10, 32 in DirectX 12, 73 in DirectX 11, 97 in DirectX 9). The MX330's average is based solely on its two Geekbench scores, which are both in the 7,000-9,000 range. The 880M's Passmark G3D score of 7615 and G2D score of 969 pull its average down despite the massive Geekbench wins.

Looking at the nearestRivals data, the MX330's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 8870M with an average score of 8462 (0% delta), followed by the 880M at 8436 (0.3% delta), and the GTX 675MX at 8427 (0.4% delta). The Intel Arc A380 sits slightly ahead at 8558, which is 1.2% better than the MX330. For the 880M, the nearest rival is the GTX 675MX at 8427 (0.1% delta), then the MX330 at 8458 (-0.3% delta), and the HD 8870M at 8462 (-0.3% delta). The AMD Radeon R9 M375X trails at 8325, a 1.3% deficit.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX330 | AMD Radeon 880M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Pascal | RDNA 3.5 |

| Process Node | 14 nm (Samsung) | 4 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 34,000 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 233 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.3M / mm² | 145.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1531 MHz | 400 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1594 MHz | 2900 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 384 | 768 |

| TMUs | 24 | 48 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| RT Cores | None | 12 |

| Pixel Rate | 25.50 GPixel/s | 46.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 38.26 GTexel/s | 139.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,224.2 GFLOPS | 4.454 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64) | 4.454 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 10 W | 15 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Release Date | 2020-02-09 | 2024-07-14 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for most users: the AMD Radeon 880M is the superior GPU in raw compute performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 74.8% and 77.5%, doubles the shading units, offers ray tracing support, and delivers significantly higher pixel and texture rates. If your work involves OpenCL or Vulkan compute tasks — such as GPU-accelerated rendering, machine learning inference, or modern game engines — the 880M is the clear choice.

The MX330's sole claim to relevance is its lower TDP of 10 W versus the 880M's 15 W, and its simpler design with fewer transistors (1,800 million vs 34,000 million) that may appeal to systems where power efficiency and minimal thermal output are paramount. The MX330 also has dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory, which can be an advantage in scenarios where system RAM bandwidth is constrained or shared with the CPU. However, its end-of-life status and 2020 release date mean it is a legacy product, while the 880M remains in active production.

For gaming, the 880M's architectural advantages — RDNA 3.5, 12 RT cores, 768 shaders, and 4.454 TFLOPS FP32 — should translate to better frame rates in modern titles, even if its Passmark DirectX scores (31-97) suggest inconsistent legacy API performance. The MX330's Pascal architecture, with only 384 shaders and 1,224 GFLOPS, is adequate for esports and older games but will struggle with contemporary workloads. The verdict is unambiguous: choose the 880M for any task that benefits from compute throughput, and only consider the MX330 for ultra-low-power systems where every watt counts and performance is secondary.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon 880M wins in:

• OpenCL compute: 31285 vs 7896 (74.8% lead)
• Vulkan compute: 40006 vs 9019 (77.5% lead)
• Pixel throughput: 46.40 GPixel/s vs 25.50 GPixel/s
• Texture throughput: 139.2 GTexel/s vs 38.26 GTexel/s
• FP32 and FP16 compute: 4.454 TFLOPS vs 1,224.2 GFLOPS and 4.454 TFLOPS vs 19.13 GFLOPS
• Ray tracing: 12 dedicated RT cores vs none
• Modern API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs 12 (12_1)
• Memory bandwidth potential: PCIe 4.0 x8 vs PCIe 3.0 x4 (system dependent)

NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins in:

• Average benchmark score: 8458 vs 8436 (0.3% margin)
• Power draw: 10 W TDP vs 15 W TDP
• Dedicated memory: 2 GB GDDR5 with fixed 56.06 GB/s bandwidth vs system shared
• Transistor count efficiency: fewer transistors (1,800 million) for a simpler, smaller design
• Legacy compatibility: older Pascal architecture with 2020-era driver maturity

The MX330's wins are largely about efficiency and simplicity, not performance. Its 10 W power envelope makes it suitable for fanless or passively cooled designs, and the dedicated VRAM avoids contention with the CPU for system memory. The 880M, despite its higher TDP, offers more than triple the raw compute in the tests that matter most for modern applications. In any head-to-head where performance is the priority, the 880M wins decisively. In any scenario where absolute minimum power consumption is non-negotiable, the MX330 holds a narrow edge — but the data shows that edge comes at a steep performance cost.