AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data places the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 250 in the only directly comparable test. The GeForce MX330 scores 7896 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Radeon R7 250 scores 7557, a 4.5% advantage for the NVIDIA part. This is a modest margin, not a generational gap, but it is consistent across the single head-to-head measurement available in the database.

The MX330 also holds a higher overall position in the database's GPU rankings. It sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8458 across its recorded tests. The R7 250 sits at the 41st percentile, with an average score of 7557. The percentile gap is small, but the average score difference of roughly 900 points reflects the MX330's broader strength in compute workloads.

For a buyer choosing between these two end-of-life parts, the MX330 is the more capable compute device in OpenCL, and its lower 10 W TDP makes it suitable for compact or integrated systems. The R7 250, with a 55 W TDP and a dedicated single-slot card format, is a discrete desktop part that still delivers usable performance but trails in raw compute scores. The data suggests the MX330 for anyone prioritizing compute throughput and efficiency, while the R7 250 remains a functional option in older desktop builds where its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and display outputs are relevant.

Where Each One Wins

The database records one head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins it with 7896 against 7557, a 4.5% delta. There is no recorded test where the Radeon R7 250 beats the MX330. However, the R7 250 has structural advantages that matter in specific use cases, even if they do not show up in the compute score.

The R7 250 offers a 128-bit memory bus with 1024 MB of DDR3 memory, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX330 uses a 64-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, reaching 56.06 GB/s. The MX330 more than doubles the memory bandwidth, which explains its OpenCL lead. The R7 250's wider bus and larger physical card footprint do not translate into a bandwidth win, but its 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units exceed the MX330's 384 shading units and 24 TMUs. In purely theoretical fill-rate terms, the MX330 still wins pixel rate (25.50 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s) and texture rate (38.26 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s).

The R7 250 wins on connectivity. It provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the MX330's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. For a desktop user with multiple monitors or legacy displays, the R7 250 is the practical choice. The MX330 is designed for mobile or embedded use, with no fixed display output configuration.

In API support, the MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX330's newer Vulkan revision is a feature win, though both parts are end-of-life and unlikely to see further driver optimization.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 uses the GP108B chip built on the Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. It packs 1,800 million transistors into a die size of 74 mm², yielding a transistor density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip based on GCN 1.0, built by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 1,500 million transistors across a larger 123 mm² die, giving a much lower density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The MX330's newer process node explains how it delivers higher performance in a smaller package with far lower power draw.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The MX330 has a base clock of 1531 MHz and a boost clock of 1594 MHz. The R7 250 has no base or boost clock listed in the database, only a memory clock of 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective data rate. The MX330's memory runs at 1752 MHz with 7 Gbps effective. The MX330's higher clocks, combined with its modern architecture, drive its compute advantage.

Memory configurations are also distinct. The MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, achieving 56.06 GB/s. The R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 28.80 GB/s. Despite the R7 250's wider bus, the MX330's faster memory type and higher clock rate produce double the bandwidth. This is a decisive factor in OpenCL workloads that are memory-bound.

Compute resources favor the R7 250 in raw counts. It has 512 shading units and 32 TMUs, compared to 384 shading units and 24 TMUs on the MX330. Both have 16 ROPs. However, the MX330's higher clocks and newer architecture overcome the unit deficit in measured performance. The MX330 also records FP32 throughput of 1,224.2 GFLOPS against 947.2 GFLOPS for the R7 250. The MX330 lists FP16 at 19.13 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the R7 250 has no FP16 data recorded.

Power and physical design are the starkest differences. The MX330 is an IGP with a 10 W TDP, no power connectors, and a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface. The R7 250 is a single-slot card with a 55 W TDP, no power connectors, a suggested 250 W PSU, and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The R7 250 measures 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length. The MX330 has no dimensions recorded because it is designed to be integrated into a portable device. The R7 250's predecessor is Sea Islands, and its successor is Pirate Islands. The MX330 has no predecessor or successor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 scores 7896 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557. The MX330 leads by 4.5%.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have, and what type?

A: The MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. The R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The MX330 achieves 56.06 GB/s, while the R7 250 achieves 28.80 GB/s. The MX330 has roughly double the bandwidth despite a narrower bus.

Q: What are the TDPs of these two GPUs?

A: The MX330 has a 10 W TDP and is classified as an IGP. The R7 250 has a 55 W TDP and is a single-slot card with a suggested 250 W PSU.

Q: Which GPU supports newer API versions?

A: The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What display outputs does each GPU offer?

A: The MX330's display outputs are portable device dependent. The R7 250 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 scores 7896, and the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557. The delta is 4.5% in favor of the MX330. This is not a dominant victory, but it is a clear one. The MX330's advantage comes from its higher memory bandwidth (56.06 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s), higher FP32 throughput (1,224.2 GFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS), and faster pixel and texture rates (25.50 GPixel/s and 38.26 GTexel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s).

The R7 250 does not win any recorded benchmark. Its only architectural advantages are raw unit counts: 512 shading units versus 384, and 32 TMUs versus 24. Those counts do not overcome the MX330's clock speed and memory bandwidth advantages in the measured workload. The R7 250's 16 ROPs match the MX330's 16 ROPs, so there is no rasterization edge either way.

Looking at the broader database context, the MX330's average benchmark score of 8458 places it near the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462, 0% delta), the AMD Radeon 880M (8436, 0.3% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8427, 0.4% delta). It trails the Intel Arc A380 (8558) by 1.2%. The R7 250's average score of 7557 places it near the Intel Arc A310 (7550, 0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580, 0.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, 1.1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, 1.5% ahead). The MX330's nearest rivals are all notably faster than the R7 250's nearest rivals, reinforcing the performance tier gap between the two parts.

The MX330 sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 250 sits at the 41st percentile. The two-point percentile gap is small, but the average score difference of 901 points (8458 versus 7557) shows that the MX330 is consistently faster in compute tests. For users relying on OpenCL workloads, the MX330 is the better choice by every recorded metric. For users needing a desktop card with fixed display outputs and a wider memory bus, the R7 250 offers structural benefits, but the benchmark data does not show it winning any compute test.