AMD Radeon R9 M275X vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in direct competition. The AMD Radeon R9 M275X takes both benchmark tests, securing 2 wins against 0 for the NVIDIA GeForce MX330. The margin, however, is not uniform across the two workloads, which reveals distinct performance characteristics.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R9 M275X scores 11,200 points against the NVIDIA GeForce MX330's 7,896 points. This is a substantial 41.8% advantage for the AMD part. This delta is massive in the context of mobile graphics, indicating that the R9 M275X is far more adept at general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL. The MX330 trails significantly, placing it well behind in this specific metric.

The Vulkan test presents a much tighter contest. Here, the AMD Radeon R9 M275X scores 9,964, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 scores 9,019. The AMD card still wins, but the delta shrinks to 10.5%. This suggests that while the AMD architecture has a lead, the NVIDIA Pascal-based chip is comparatively more competitive in a modern graphics API like Vulkan. The 10.5% gap is far less commanding than the OpenCL result, hinting that the MX330's architecture is better optimized for this newer workload.

Contextualizing these scores against the database's nearest rivals adds depth. The AMD Radeon R9 M275X has an average benchmark score of 10,582. Its closest rival in the database is the AMD Radeon RX 6600S, which averages 10,629, a delta of -0.4%. This places the R9 M275X within a hair's breadth of a much more modern part in aggregate performance. It also sits 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 550X and trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti by 1%. This positioning shows that despite its age, the R9 M275X holds its own in the mid-range tier.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330's average benchmark score is 8,458. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8870M, which scores 8,462, a delta of 0%. The MX330 is effectively tied with that older part. It is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon 880M and 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX. However, it trails the Intel Arc A380 by 1.2%. These figures establish the MX330 as a lower-tier performer in the database, clustering with parts from previous generations.

The head-to-head results are decisive. The 41.8% OpenCL win for the AMD Radeon R9 M275X is the single biggest margin between the two. The 10.5% Vulkan win is more modest but still a comfortable victory. Overall, the data indicates that the AMD Radeon R9 M275X is the superior card in raw benchmark performance, with a significant edge in compute-heavy tasks and a solid lead in graphics API workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M275X has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 10,582 compared to the NVIDIA GeForce MX330's 8,458.

Q: What are the individual benchmark results for each card?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R9 M275X scores 11,200 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 scores 7,896. In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD card scores 9,964 and the NVIDIA card scores 9,019.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M275X is 41.8% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: Is the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 competitive in any benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 is closer in the Vulkan test, where it trails by only 10.5%, compared to the 41.8% gap in OpenCL. This shows it is relatively stronger in Vulkan workloads.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon R9 M275X compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M275X has an average score of 10,582, which is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6600S, 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 550X, and 1.7% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2200.

Q: How does the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has an average score of 8,458, which is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon HD 8870M, 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon 880M, and 1.2% behind the Intel Arc A380.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from different eras. The AMD Radeon R9 M275X uses the Venus chip based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 uses the GP108B chip based on the Pascal architecture.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The AMD Radeon R9 M275X is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 is built on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This gives the NVIDIA chip a manufacturing advantage, as the smaller node allows for higher transistor density. The AMD chip contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The NVIDIA chip packs 1,800 million transistors onto a much smaller 74 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.3M per mm².

The compute resources differ markedly. The AMD Radeon R9 M275X has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The AMD card has more shading units and TMUs, while both share the same ROP count.

The memory architecture also diverges. The AMD card uses a 128-bit memory bus, while the NVIDIA card uses a 64-bit bus. This is a major factor in memory bandwidth, where the AMD card achieves 72.00 GB/s compared to the NVIDIA card's 56.06 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the AMD card's wider bus gives it a significant bandwidth advantage.

The feature support and API compatibility show differences as well. The AMD Radeon R9 M275X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MX330 has a newer DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, which explains its relatively better performance in the Vulkan benchmark despite being slower overall.

The NVIDIA card also has a specific FP16 rating of 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64), while the AMD card has no listed FP16 capability. The bus interface differs, with the AMD card using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the NVIDIA card using PCIe 3.0 x4, which could affect data transfer rates in certain scenarios.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several clear differences between the two cards. The process node is a key divider: the AMD Radeon R9 M275X uses 28 nm at TSMC, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 uses 14 nm at Samsung. The transistor counts differ, with AMD at 1,500 million and NVIDIA at 1,800 million. The die size also varies, with AMD at 123 mm² and NVIDIA at 74 mm², leading to a transistor density of 12.2M per mm² for AMD and 24.3M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds show a notable divergence. The AMD Radeon R9 M275X has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 925 MHz. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 runs much higher, with a base clock of 1531 MHz and a boost clock of 1594 MHz. The memory clock differs as well, with AMD at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) and NVIDIA at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

The memory subsystem differs in bus width and bandwidth. AMD uses a 128-bit bus, NVIDIA uses a 64-bit bus. This results in AMD having 72.00 GB/s bandwidth versus NVIDIA's 56.06 GB/s. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

The core counts are distinct. AMD has 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, while NVIDIA has 384 shading units and 24 TMUs. Both have 16 ROPs. The pixel rate is higher for NVIDIA at 25.50 GPixel/s versus AMD's 14.80 GPixel/s. The texture rate is slightly higher for NVIDIA at 38.26 GTexel/s versus AMD's 37.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is close, with AMD at 1,184.0 GFLOPS and NVIDIA at 1,224.2 GFLOPS.

The power characteristics differ, with NVIDIA listing a TDP of 10 W and a slot width of IGP, along with no power connectors. AMD does not list a TDP or slot width. The bus interface also differs: AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x16, NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x4. The display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for NVIDIA, while AMD has no listing.

The release dates show a generation gap. The AMD Radeon R9 M275X was released on 2014-01-27, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 was released on 2020-02-09. Both are marked as end-of-life production status. The AMD card has a predecessor listed as "Solar System" and a successor as "Polaris Mobile", while the NVIDIA card has no listed predecessor or successor.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M275X is the clear winner in raw compute performance. Its 41.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL makes it the obvious choice for workloads that rely heavily on general-purpose GPU compute, such as OpenCL-accelerated applications. The 10.5% lead in Vulkan also gives it the edge in modern graphics APIs, though the margin is smaller. Its higher memory bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s, enabled by the 128-bit bus, is a significant advantage for memory-intensive tasks. The higher shading unit and TMU counts also contribute to its overall performance superiority.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins in efficiency and specific architectural features. Its 14 nm process at Samsung allows for a much smaller die (74 mm² versus 123 mm²) and higher transistor density (24.3M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm²). The TDP of 10 W makes it an extremely low-power part, suitable for thin and light laptops where power consumption is critical. Its higher clock speeds (1531 MHz base, 1594 MHz boost) and higher pixel rate (25.50 GPixel/s) show that it can be competitive in certain fill-rate-bound scenarios, despite the lower overall benchmark scores. The newer DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level and Vulkan 1.4 support indicate better compatibility with the latest software standards.

In terms of use cases, the AMD Radeon R9 M275X is better suited for users who prioritize compute performance and are willing to accept a larger, more power-hungry chip. Its performance in the database places it at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the MX330's 43rd percentile. The AMD card's average benchmark score of 10,582 puts it in a higher performance tier, rivaling parts like the AMD Radeon RX 6600S.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 is better suited for users who prioritize portability and battery life. Its IGP slot width and lack of power connectors make it ideal for integrated-style implementations in compact devices. While it loses in benchmark performance, its 10 W TDP and smaller footprint are compelling for specific mobile form factors. The MX330's Vulkan score of 9,019 is relatively strong, suggesting it can handle modern gaming and graphics workloads adequately, just not at the same level as the AMD card.