AMD Radeon HD 8850M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this benchmark, the MX330 scores 7896, while the HD 8850M scores 7447. That gives the NVIDIA part a 6% lead, a meaningful margin in real-world compute workloads.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the gap widens. The MX330 holds an average benchmark score of 8458 across all recorded tests, while the HD 8850M averages 7447. That is a 13.6% difference in overall performance, driven partly by the fact that the MX330 has a second recorded result (Geekbench Vulkan at 9019) that the HD 8850M does not match, as the AMD part has no Vulkan entry in the database.

The percentile data reinforces this separation. The MX330 sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the HD 8850M sits at the 40th. Neither is a high-end part by modern standards, but the MX330 is clearly the stronger performer in the database's measurements.

When compared to their own nearest rivals, both GPUs cluster tightly around similar scores. The MX330's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 8870M with an average score of 8462, a 0% delta, meaning the two are statistically tied. The AMD Radeon 880M trails at 8436, a 0.3% delta in favor of the MX330, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX scores 8427, a 0.4% delta. The only rival that beats the MX330 in its neighborhood is the Intel Arc A380 at 8558, which is 1.2% faster.

The HD 8850M, meanwhile, matches up against the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7441 (0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7425 (0.3% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7472 (a 0.3% delta against the HD 8850M). The Intel Arc A310 is the strongest nearby rival at 7550, 1.4% ahead of the HD 8850M. These tight deltas show that both parts sit in crowded performance bands, but the bands themselves are clearly different.

In raw compute metrics, the MX330 also holds the edge. Its FP32 output is 1,224.2 GFLOPS, versus 800.0 GFLOPS for the HD 8850M, a 53% advantage. Texture rate favors the MX330 at 38.26 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s, a 53% lead. Pixel rate is even more lopsided: 25.50 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 10.00 GPixel/s for AMD, a 155% advantage. These numbers explain why the MX330 dominates in OpenCL: it simply has more throughput capacity per clock cycle, and its clock speeds are far higher.

The HD 8850M does fight back in memory bandwidth, at least in aggregate. Its memory clock runs at 1000 MHz with a 128-bit bus width, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX330 uses a 64-bit bus with memory at 1752 MHz, resulting in 56.56 GB/s. The AMD part's wider bus gives it 14% more bandwidth, which helps in bandwidth-sensitive workloads, even though its lower clocks limit overall compute performance.

---

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins the OpenCL test with a score of 7896, which is 6% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7447.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The MX330 averages 8458 across all recorded benchmarks, while the HD 8850M averages 7447. The MX330 also has a Vulkan score of 43% of all GPUs, while the HD 8850M sits at 40th percentile, indicating a 43rd percentile placement for the NVIDIA part. Specifically, the MX330's Vulkan score of 9019 pushes its average up, a result the HD 8850M cannot match.

Q: Does the HD 8850M have any Vulkan benchmark results in the database data?

A: No. The database records show the HD 8850M has only one benchmark score: 7447 in Geekbench OpenCL. The MX330 has two recorded scores: 7896 OpenCL and 9019 Vulkan.

Q: How does the MX330 perform relative to the GTX 1650 in average score?

A: The MX330's average score is 8458, and the GTX 1650 is 0.3% faster than the HD 8850M on the HD 8850M's nearest rival list, which is the MX330's nearest rival list, but the Intel Arc A380 is 1.2% faster than the MX330's nearest rival list, showing that the MX330's closest rival is the Radeon HD 8870M at 8462, a 0% delta. The GTX 1650 is not a direct comparison to the MX330, and the HD 8870M is 0.3% slower than the MX330's 0.3% lead.

Q: Which part has higher FP32 performance?

A: The MX330 produces 1,224.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 53% higher than the HD 8850M's 800.0 GFLOPS.

---

Where Each One Wins

The MX330 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, OpenCL and the overall performance category in the database. Its strengths lie in raw compute throughput, where it dominates the HD 8850M in every measurable rate metric. Pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 output, and pixel fill rate all favor NVIDIA by margins from 53% to 155%. The MX330 also has a higher boost clock speed of 1594 MHz boost clock speed, 1594 MHz boost, and a 14 nm process node, allowing it to pack 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter.

The HD 8850M wins on memory bandwidth, with 64.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, 64.00 GB/s, and a 128-bit memory bus, 128-bit bus width, and 128-bit width. The HD 8850M also has a larger die of 123 mm² and a 28 nm process, 28 nm process node, 28 nm, with 1,500 million transistors on a die size of 123 mm², and a 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The MX330 has more shading units, 384 shading units, and 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter density, while the HD 8850M has 640 shading units and 40 texture units, and 40 TMUs, and 40 TMUs, and 40 TMUs, and 40 texture units, and 40 TMUs, and 40 texture units, and 40. The MX330 has 24 TMUs and 40 TMUs, 24 texture units, and 24 TMUs, 24 TMUs, and 24 TMUs. The HD 8850M has 40 texture units, 40, and 640 shading units, and 40, while the MX330 has 24 texture units, and 24.

The MX330 has a higher boost clock of 1594 MHz and a base clock of 1531 MHz, while the HD 8850M runs at a base clock of 575 MHz and a boost clock of 625 MHz. The MX330's memory runs at 1752 MHz, 7 Gbps effective, while the HD 8850M's memory runs at 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective. The MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, while the HD 8850M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus.

The MX330 has a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the HD 8850M uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The HD 8850M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

---

Specification Differences

The primary specification differences between the two parts are as follows:

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX330 | AMD Radeon HD 8850M |

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

| Chip | GP108B | Venus |

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |

| Process node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 1,500 million |

| Die size | 74 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor density | 24.3M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1531 MHz | 575 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1594 MHz | 625 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1752 MHz, 7 Gbps effective | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading units | 384 | 640 |

| TMUs | 24 | 40 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 25.50 GPixel/s | 10.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 38.26 GTexel/s | 25.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,224.2 GFLOPS | 800.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64) | null |

| TDP | 10 W | null |

| Slot width | IGP | null |

| Power connectors | None | null |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | null |

| Release date | 2020-02-09 | 2013-03-31 |

| Predecessor | null | London |

| Successor | null | Gem System |

---

Architecture Differences

The MX330 is built on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It uses the GP108B chip, which packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The HD 8850M uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with the Venus chip containing 1,500 million transistors across a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The MX330's smaller process node gives it a significant density advantage, allowing more compute per area and far higher clock speeds.

The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The HD 8850M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the MX330 achieves higher FP32 output (1,224.2 GFLOPS vs 800.0 GFLOPS) because its clock speeds are vastly higher. The HD 8850M compensates with more texture units and a wider memory bus, but its lower clocks (575 MHz base, 625 MHz boost, versus 1531 MHz base, 1594 MHz boost for the MX330) hold back its peak rates.

The MX330 uses a 64-bit memory bus with GDDR5 at 7 Gbps effective, yielding 56.06 GB/s. The HD 8850M uses a 128-bit memory bus with GDDR5 at 4 Gbps effective, yielding 64.00 GB/s. The wider bus gives the AMD part more memory bandwidth, but the MX330's higher memory clock partially offsets this.

Both parts support DirectX 12, but the MX330 supports the 12_1 feature level, while the HD 8850M supports 11_1. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The MX330 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the HD 8850M supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX330 has a TDP of 10 W and is an IGP with no power connectors, while the HD 8850M's TDP is unlisted. The MX330 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the HD 8850M uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

---

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 as the faster GPU. Its average benchmark score of 8458 versus 7447 for the AMD Radeon HD 8850M represents a 13.6% overall advantage. In the only direct head-to-head test, the OpenCL benchmark, the MX330 wins by 6%. Its FP32 throughput is 53% higher, its texture rate is 53% higher, and its pixel rate is 155% higher. The MX330 also has a Vulkan score of 9019, while the HD 8850M has no Vulkan result in the database, suggesting the NVIDIA part has better modern API support.

The HD 8850M does have advantages in memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs 56.06 GB/s) and a wider 128-bit memory bus, which could help in bandwidth-bound workloads. It also has more shading units (640 vs 384) and more texture units (40 vs 24). However, these advantages do not translate into higher benchmark scores, because the MX330's much higher clock speeds (boost 1594 MHz vs 625 MHz) and more efficient architecture compensate.

For a modern user, the MX330 is the more capable part. It was released in 2020, while the HD 8850M dates to 2013. The MX330 supports newer DirectX features (12_1 vs 11_1) and a newer Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.2.170). Its lower TDP of 10 W makes it suitable for compact systems, and it uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the HD 8850M uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

For legacy applications that rely on older AMD GCN features or that benefit from a wider memory bus, the HD 8850M could still be serviceable, but the benchmark data gives it no wins over the MX330. The MX330 is the clear choice for anyone comparing these two parts, provided the system supports its PCIe 3.0 x4 interface and the user does not need the HD 8850M's wider memory bandwidth. The HD 8850M's only recorded benchmark result is the OpenCL score, which is lower than both of the MX330's recorded scores, so the verdict is straightforward: the MX330 wins in every measured category.