AMD Radeon 890M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

# AMD Radeon 890M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330

The AMD Radeon 890M and NVIDIA GeForce MX330 occupy opposite ends of the mobile graphics spectrum, yet both target thin-and-light laptops. The 890M is a modern integrated GPU built on RDNA 3.5, while the MX330 is a legacy entry-level discrete part from the Pascal era. The benchmark data reveals a generational chasm: in the two shared tests, the AMD part wins by margins of 352–372%, a gap so wide that the MX330 appears to be competing in a different performance class entirely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is brief but decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon 890M scores 37,254 against the MX330’s 7,896 — a delta of 371.8% in AMD’s favor. That is not a marginal victory; it is a four-to-one advantage in raw compute throughput. The Vulkan result tells the same story: the 890M scores 40,808 versus 9,019, a 352.5% lead.

These are the only two benchmarks shared between the parts, and AMD wins both. The MX330 has zero wins in the head-to-head set. Interpreting the scores, the 890M’s OpenCL figure is roughly 4.7 times higher than the MX330’s, while the Vulkan gap is about 4.5 times. Such consistency across two different APIs suggests the advantage is structural, not workload-specific.

The broader benchmark data reinforces this. The 890M’s average benchmark score is 9,210, placing it in the 45th percentile of all GPUs. The MX330 averages 8,458, sitting at the 43rd percentile. On the surface, the percentile gap looks small, but the averages are skewed by different test sets — the 890M has ten recorded benchmarks, while the MX330 has only two. The 890M’s additional tests include PassMark G3D at 8,076 and GPU compute at 4,157, figures that would likely dwarf anything the MX330 could produce in those same tests.

Looking at the 890M’s nearest rivals puts its standing in context. It trades blows with the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (delta −0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (−0.7%), the GTX 465 (−0.9%), and the GTX 850M (−1%). These are all older discrete GPUs, meaning the 890M as an integrated solution is matching or beating dedicated parts from previous generations. The MX330’s rivals are similarly aged: the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (0% delta), the Radeon 880M (0.3%), the GTX 675MX (0.4%), and the Intel Arc A380 (−1.2%). The MX330 is essentially level with a 2012-era mobile GPU, while the 890M is competing with mid-range desktop cards from a few years ago.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf is enormous. The 890M uses TSMC’s 4 nm process, while the MX330 is built on Samsung’s 14 nm node — a three-generation process gap that explains much of the efficiency and performance disparity. The 890M packs 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die, yielding a density of 145.9M transistors per mm². The MX330 has just 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, a density of 24.3M per mm². The AMD chip contains nearly 19 times more transistors.

The 890M is an integrated GPU (IGP) using the Strix Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP generation. The MX330 is a discrete chip (GP108B) running Pascal, from the GeForce MX 3xx family. The 890M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the MX330 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1) — a feature-level difference that matters for modern games using mesh shaders or variable rate shading. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The 890M has 16 ray tracing cores; the MX330 has none. This is a fundamental capability gap: the AMD part can accelerate ray-traced effects, while the NVIDIA part relies entirely on traditional rasterization. The 890M also has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the MX330’s 384 shaders, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD GPU’s compute throughput is rated at 5.939 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 1,224.2 GFLOPS for the MX330 — a 4.85x difference that aligns with the benchmark deltas.

Memory architecture differs completely. The 890M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with the laptop’s RAM configuration. The MX330 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 56.06 GB/s. In practice, the 890M’s shared memory can be a bottleneck if the system RAM is slow, but the raw compute advantage appears to overwhelm this limitation. The 890M’s clock speeds range from 400 MHz base to 2900 MHz boost; the MX330 runs at 1531 MHz base and 1594 MHz boost.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon 890M outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 by a factor of 3.5 to 3.7 in the shared benchmarks. The 890M wins 100% of the head-to-head tests. Its transistor count, shading units, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput all dwarf the MX330’s corresponding figures. The MX330’s only advantages are its dedicated 2 GB VRAM and lower TDP (10 W versus 15 W), but neither translates into a benchmark win.

For a laptop buyer, the 890M is the clear choice if GPU performance matters at all. The MX330’s Pascal architecture is a decade old in design philosophy, lacking ray tracing and modern DirectX features. The 890M’s 45th percentile standing means it can handle esports titles and older games reasonably well, while the MX330’s 43rd percentile puts it in similar overall standing but with far lower absolute scores in compute-heavy workloads.

The MX330 is end-of-life, while the 890M is active production. That alone signals which part a manufacturer would choose for a new design. The 890M’s 4 nm process, 34 billion transistors, and 5.939 TFLOPS FP32 make it a fundamentally more capable piece of silicon. Any laptop shipping with the MX330 today would be severely hamstrung in GPU-bound tasks compared to one with the 890M.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 890M | NVIDIA GeForce MX330 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Pascal |

| Process node | 4 nm | 14 nm |

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

| Die size | 233 mm² | 74 mm² |

| Transistor density | 145.9M / mm² | 24.3M / mm² |

| Shading units | 1,024 | 384 |

| TMUs | 64 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| RT cores | 16 | None |

| Base clock | 400 MHz | 1,531 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2,900 MHz | 1,594 MHz |

| FP32 | 5.939 TFLOPS | 1,224.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.939 TFLOPS (1:1) | 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| Pixel rate | 92.80 GPixel/s | 25.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 185.6 GTexel/s | 38.26 GTexel/s |

| Memory size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus | System Shared | 64 bit |

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

| TDP | 15 W | 10 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

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

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

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 890M. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 37,254 versus the MX330’s 7,896, a 371.8% advantage. In Vulkan, the 890M scores 40,808 versus 9,019, a 352.5% lead.

Q: Does the MX330 have any ray tracing capability?

A: No. The MX330 has no RT cores listed in its specifications. The 890M includes 16 ray tracing cores, which enables hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Q: How do the memory systems differ?

A: The 890M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the MX330 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The 890M’s memory performance depends entirely on the host laptop’s RAM.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The MX330 has a lower TDP at 10 W compared to the 890M’s 15 W. However, the 890M delivers 4.85 times more FP32 throughput, making its performance-per-watt substantially higher.

Q: Are these GPUs contemporary products?

A: No. The 890M was released on 2024-07-14 and is in active production. The MX330 was released on 2020-02-09 and is end-of-life. The 890M is built on a 4 nm process versus the MX330’s 14 nm node.

Q: Which GPU has better driver and API support?

A: The 890M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the MX330 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The 890M’s higher DirectX feature level enables newer graphics effects.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 890M wins in every measured category. It dominates compute-heavy workloads, as shown by the 371.8% OpenCL and 352.5% Vulkan deltas. Its 5.939 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 185.6 GTexel/s texture rate make it suitable for modern game rendering, especially at lower resolutions where its shared memory bandwidth is sufficient. The 16 RT cores give it a path to ray-traced effects that the MX330 cannot access at all. The 890M’s 4 nm process and 34 billion transistors suggest it will remain relevant for future software that leverages DirectX 12 Ultimate features.

The MX330’s sole wins are in power draw and dedicated VRAM. Its 10 W TDP is lower than the 890M’s 15 W, which could matter in ultra-portable designs where every watt counts. Its 2 GB GDDR5 is dedicated, meaning it does not contend with the CPU for memory bandwidth — in a system with slow or insufficient RAM, the MX330 might exhibit more consistent frame pacing than the 890M. However, the benchmark data shows no scenario where this translates into a performance victory.

For gaming, the 890M is the obvious pick. For basic laptop tasks like video playback and office work, both are overkill. But if a buyer must choose between these two in a laptop, the 890M’s 352–372% benchmark advantage makes it the only rational choice. The MX330’s Pascal architecture, 14 nm process, and end-of-life status place it firmly in the past, while the 890M represents the current state of integrated graphics. The data does not support any scenario where the MX330 is preferable for performance-oriented users.