AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete mismatch in the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M scores 29,252 against 7,896 for the NVIDIA GeForce MX330, a delta of 270.5%. That is not a marginal edge; it is a lead of roughly 3.7 times the raw score. The Vulkan result is similarly lopsided: 27,912 versus 9,019, a 209.5% advantage for the AMD part.

When placed against their nearest rivals in the database, both GPUs sit in a narrow band, but the AMD chip is closer to the top of its peer group. The Radeon Pro 5300M's average benchmark score is 10,013, with the closest competitor, the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, at 10,043 (0.3% higher) and the AMD Radeon R9 M375 at 10,070 (0.6% higher). The GeForce MX330 averages 8,458, with the AMD Radeon HD 8870M matching it at 8,462 (0% delta) and the Intel Arc A380 trailing by 1.2%. The gap between the two GPUs in average score is about 18.4%, which aligns with the head-to-head deltas but understates how dominant the Radeon is in compute-heavy workloads.

The Radeon Pro 5300M also has a broader benchmark footprint in the database. It appears in 10 tests, including Passmark G3D (5,918), Passmark GPU Compute (2,658), and Geekbench Metal (33,626), while the MX330 only has recorded scores for OpenCL and Vulkan. That limits direct comparison to those two tests, but the margin there is decisive. The MX330 has no recorded win in any shared test.

Percentile placement reinforces the story. The Radeon Pro 5300M sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the MX330 sits at the 43rd. That five-point spread is modest, but the average score difference (10,013 versus 8,458) suggests the AMD part is comfortably faster in sustained workloads, not just in a single synthetic test.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different foundries, nodes, and design generations. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip on TSMC's 7 nm process, with 6,400 million transistors packed into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 uses the GP108B chip on Samsung's 14 nm process, with 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, for a density of 24.3M per mm². The AMD part is built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, while the MX330 is Pascal, a significantly older design.

The compute resources are far apart. The Radeon Pro 5300M carries 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 3.3x difference in shading units and a 3.3x difference in TMUs, which explains why raw throughput numbers are so different. The AMD chip delivers 3.200 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 6.400 TFLOPS of FP16 (via a 2:1 ratio). The MX330 manages 1,224.2 GFLOPS of FP32 and only 19.13 GFLOPS of FP16, with a 1:64 ratio. The FP16 gap is extreme: the Radeon has over 300 times the half-precision throughput, which matters for any workload that can use packed math.

Memory is another major divider. The Radeon Pro 5300M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, running at 12 Gbps effective, for a bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s. The MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, at 7 Gbps effective, for 56.06 GB/s. That is a 3.4x bandwidth advantage for the AMD part, which directly impacts texture streaming, compute kernels, and higher-resolution framebuffers. Pixel rate and texture rate follow the same pattern: the Radeon hits 40.00 GPixel/s and 100.0 GTexel/s, versus 25.50 GPixel/s and 38.26 GTexel/s for the MX330.

Power is where the MX330 fights back. Its TDP is 10 W, versus 85 W for the Radeon Pro 5300M. The AMD chip is a mobile workstation part that expects a real cooling solution and a power budget; the MX330 is an entry-level IGP-class part that can be dropped into thin laptops. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the AMD part, PCIe 3.0 x4 for the NVIDIA. Both are end-of-life products, but the Radeon launched on 2019-11-12 and the MX330 on 2020-02-09. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M delivers 3.200 TFLOPS of FP32, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 delivers 1,224.2 GFLOPS. The AMD part is roughly 2.6 times faster in single-precision math.

Q: Is the memory bandwidth difference significant?

A: Yes. The Radeon Pro 5300M has 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, versus 56.06 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus for the MX330. That is a 3.4x advantage, which affects all memory-bound workloads.

Q: Can the MX330 compete in any benchmark?

A: In the shared tests, it does not win a single one. The Radeon leads by 270.5% in OpenCL and 209.5% in Vulkan. The MX330's average score of 8,458 is lower than the Radeon's 10,013, so there is no recorded scenario where the NVIDIA part comes out ahead.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The MX330 has a 10 W TDP, making it suitable for fanless or ultra-low-power designs. The Radeon Pro 5300M has an 85 W TDP, which requires active cooling and a larger power delivery system. Neither uses external power connectors.

Q: What are the architectural differences that matter most?

A: The Radeon uses RDNA 1.0 on TSMC 7 nm with 6,400 million transistors, while the MX330 uses Pascal on Samsung 14 nm with 1,800 million. The AMD chip also has 1280 shading units versus 384, and a 2:1 FP16 ratio versus 1:64, so the compute capabilities are not remotely comparable.

Q: Are both GPUs still relevant for new purchases?

A: The database lists both as end-of-life. The Radeon Pro 5300M was released on 2019-11-12 and the MX330 on 2020-02-09. Neither has a successor listed, but their age and power profiles suggest they are legacy parts, not current options.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is the faster GPU in every recorded comparison. Its OpenCL lead of 270.5% and Vulkan lead of 209.5% are not marginal, they are generational. The average benchmark score of 10,013 versus 8,458 puts the Radeon about 18% ahead overall, and its 48th percentile ranking versus the MX330's 43rd confirms a real, if smaller, standing in the broader GPU landscape.

Pick the Radeon Pro 5300M if you need compute performance, memory bandwidth, or any workload that touches FP16 or large textures. It has 4 GB of GDDR6, 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and 3.200 TFLOPS of FP32, which is enough for professional mobile workloads like rendering, simulation, or GPU-accelerated encoding. The 85 W TDP means it belongs in a laptop with a discrete cooling solution, not an ultraportable.

Pick the GeForce MX330 if your priority is minimal power draw. Its 10 W TDP is a fraction of the Radeon's, and its 14 nm Pascal chip is small, cheap to implement, and fine for basic display output, light 2D work, or video playback. It is not a compute part. With 384 shading units, 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth, and no recorded wins in shared tests, it will struggle with any serious 3D or GPGPU task.

There is no scenario in the recorded data where the MX330 is the right choice for performance. The only reason to choose it is system integration: power envelope, thermal limits, or cost constraints that the database does not capture. For anyone comparing these two purely on benchmark results, the Radeon Pro 5300M wins outright.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon Pro 5300M | NVIDIA GeForce MX330 |

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

| Chip | Navi 14 | GP108B |

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Pascal |

| Process node | 7 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 1,800 million |

| Die size | 158 mm² | 74 mm² |

| Transistor density | 40.5M / mm² | 24.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 1531 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1250 MHz | 1594 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective | 1752 MHz, 7 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Bus width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 56.06 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1280 | 384 |

| TMUs | 80 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 40.00 GPixel/s | 25.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 100.0 GTexel/s | 38.26 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.200 TFLOPS | 1,224.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.400 TFLOPS (2:1) | 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 85 W | 10 W |

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

| Release date | 2019-11-12 | 2020-02-09 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M wins every performance category in the database. It has higher raw compute, higher memory bandwidth, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, and a wider memory bus. Its wins in OpenCL and Vulkan are 270.5% and 209.5% respectively, which points to heavy-duty use cases: 3D rendering, video encoding, machine learning inference, or any CUDA-adjacent workload that can run through OpenCL. The 4 GB VRAM is also a practical floor for modern workloads, while 2 GB on the MX330 is often insufficient even for moderate textures.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins only in power efficiency and clock speed. Its base and boost clocks are higher (1531 MHz and 1594 MHz versus 1000 MHz and 1250 MHz), but that is irrelevant given the massive shader and memory disadvantage. Its 10 W TDP makes it viable for a passive or near-passive laptop design, whereas the Radeon's 85 W TDP demands a heat pipe and fan. The MX330 also uses PCIe 3.0 x4, which is simpler to integrate into older platforms.

For a practical use-case split: the Radeon Pro 5300M is for a mobile workstation or a gaming laptop that doubles as a compute box. The MX330 is for a basic ultrabook where the GPU only needs to drive a display, decode video, and run light 2D applications. If the workload is anything beyond that, the recorded data says the Radeon is the only viable choice.