AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M265X and NVIDIA GeForce MX330 represent two very different eras of mobile graphics, separated by nearly six years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear split: the older AMD part wins the single available OpenCL benchmark, while the newer NVIDIA GPU counters with a higher peak clock rate, a more efficient manufacturing process, and a DirectX 12_1 feature set. The benchmark results indicate that raw compute throughput does not tell the whole story, as the MX330’s performance profile is defined by its Pascal architecture’s efficiency rather than brute force.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M265X takes the only direct head-to-head benchmark available in the data. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 8,851 points against the MX330’s 7,896, a 12.1% advantage. This is a substantial margin for a compute-oriented workload, suggesting the R9 M265X’s 640 shading units and 128-bit memory interface provide a meaningful throughput advantage over the MX330’s 384 shading units and 64-bit bus. The AMD card’s 64.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus the NVIDIA’s 56.06 GB/s reinforces this, as OpenCL workloads often scale with memory bandwidth.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins in every other measurable category, though not through benchmark scores. Its architecture is fundamentally more modern, built on a 14 nm Samsung process versus AMD’s 28 nm TSMC node. This translates directly to transistor density: the MX330 packs 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter, nearly double the R9 M265X’s 12.2M / mm². The MX330 also operates at dramatically higher clocks, with a base of 1,531 MHz and boost of 1,594 MHz, compared to the AMD’s 575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost. This clock advantage explains why the MX330 achieves a higher pixel rate (25.50 GPixel/s vs 10.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (38.26 GTexel/s vs 25.00 GTexel/s) despite having fewer execution units.

The MX330 also wins on API support. It lists DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R9 M265X only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). This is a generational leap in feature level, meaning the NVIDIA part can handle more advanced rendering techniques in modern games. The MX330 also supports Vulkan 1.4, compared to the R9 M265X’s Vulkan 1.2.170, and it has a dedicated Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,019, which is 14.2% higher than its own OpenCL score, indicating strong graphics API performance. The AMD card has no Vulkan benchmark data and no OpenCL score beyond the single 8,851 result.

The Verdict

The data points to a nuanced conclusion rather than a clear winner. For compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL acceleration, the AMD Radeon R9 M265X is the better choice, delivering 12.1% higher performance than the MX330 in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Its 2 GB GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 14.2% more than the MX330’s 56.06 GB/s. If your workload is dominated by general-purpose GPU compute, the older AMD part offers a measurable advantage.

For gaming, modern application compatibility, and power efficiency, the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 is the superior option. Its DirectX 12_1 feature level is a full step ahead of the R9 M265X’s 11_1, which matters for titles that use advanced DX12 features. The MX330’s 10 W TDP is remarkably low, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where the R9 M265X, with no TDP listed, likely consumes significantly more power. The NVIDIA part also has a proven Vulkan score of 9,019, while the AMD card has no Vulkan result, suggesting the MX330 is better suited for modern cross-platform titles.

The percentile rankings are nearly identical, with the R9 M265X at the 44th percentile and the MX330 at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. This indicates the two cards occupy the same performance tier overall, despite their architectural differences. The MX330’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (0% delta) and the Intel Arc A380 (-1.2% delta), while the R9 M265X sits close to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (-0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (1.2% delta). Neither card is a performance leader; both are entry-level mobile solutions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon R9 M265X defeats the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 by 12.1%. The AMD card scores 8,851, while the NVIDIA card scores 7,896. This is a decisive win for AMD in compute throughput, driven by its larger memory bus and higher shading unit count. The R9 M265X has 640 shading units and 40 texture mapping units, compared to the MX330’s 384 shading units and 24 TMUs. Even though the MX330 runs at more than double the clock speed, it cannot overcome the AMD card’s 67% advantage in shading units and 67% advantage in TMUs.

Looking at the nearest rival data provides additional context. The R9 M265X’s 8,851 OpenCL score places it just 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863) and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746). This suggests the R9 M265X is performing at the level of a mid-range workstation GPU from a later generation, which is impressive for its 2014 vintage. The MX330’s 7,896 OpenCL score puts it 0.0% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462) and 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427), indicating it sits squarely in the middle of older mobile gaming GPUs.

The MX330’s Vulkan score of 9,019 is not directly comparable to the R9 M265X’s OpenCL score, but it does reveal the NVIDIA card’s strength in graphics APIs. The MX330’s Vulkan performance is 14.2% higher than its own OpenCL performance, a pattern typical of Pascal architecture, which was optimized for modern graphics workloads. The R9 M265X has no Vulkan benchmark data, so its graphics API performance remains unquantified in this dataset. The absence of a Vulkan score for the AMD card and the absence of an OpenCL score for the MX330 beyond the head-to-head means a full comparison is incomplete, but the available data favors AMD for compute and suggests NVIDIA for graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score in the head-to-head test?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8,851 in Geekbench OpenCL, defeating the NVIDIA GeForce MX330’s 7,896 by a 12.1% margin.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M265X uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 also uses 2 GB of GDDR5, but on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX feature level?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The MX330 also supports Vulkan 1.4, compared to the R9 M265X’s Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in pixel and texture rates?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 achieves 25.50 GPixel/s and 38.26 GTexel/s, significantly higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M265X’s 10.00 GPixel/s and 25.00 GTexel/s, due to its much higher clock speeds.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has a transistor density of 24.3 million per mm² on a 14 nm Samsung process, while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X has 12.2 million per mm² on a 28 nm TSMC process.

Q: Which GPU has a lower power consumption?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has a TDP of 10 W and uses no power connectors, while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X has no TDP listed in the data, making a direct power comparison impossible.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R9 M265X is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Venus chip, and is part of the Gem System (R9 M200) generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The chip features 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with a 128-bit memory interface. Its base clock is 575 MHz with a boost of 625 MHz, and memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The R9 M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, and connects via PCIe 3.0 x16.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP108B chip, part of the GeForce MX (3xx) generation. It is built on a 14 nm process at Samsung, with 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, resulting in a much higher transistor density of 24.3M / mm². The chip has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with a 64-bit memory interface. Its base clock is 1,531 MHz with a boost of 1,594 MHz, and memory runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and connects via PCIe 3.0 x4. It has a TDP of 10 W, uses no power connectors, and is an IGP-class solution.

The architectural differences are stark. The R9 M265X has 67% more shading units and 67% more TMUs than the MX330, giving it a raw compute advantage. However, the MX330’s clocks are nearly 2.7 times higher, allowing it to achieve higher pixel and texture rates. The R9 M265X’s 128-bit memory bus provides 14.2% more bandwidth than the MX330’s 64-bit bus, which is critical for memory-intensive workloads. The MX330’s 14 nm process and 10 W TDP make it far more power-efficient, while the R9 M265X’s 28 nm process and unspecified TDP suggest it is a more power-hungry part. The MX330’s DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4 support are modern, while the R9 M265X’s DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170 are older. These differences explain the benchmark results: the AMD card wins on compute due to its wider memory bus and more execution units, while the NVIDIA card is designed for efficiency and modern graphics features.