AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in this matchup. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 takes both head-to-head benchmark tests, securing 2 wins against 0 for the NVIDIA GeForce MX330. The gap is substantial in one test and moderate in the other.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R9 M375 scores 10457 against 7896 for the NVIDIA GeForce MX330. That is a 32.4% advantage, a commanding lead. The MX330 would need a significant boost to close that gap, and the data indicates it simply does not have the raw compute throughput in this workload. This is the largest delta between the two cards in any recorded test.

The Vulkan result is closer but still favors the older AMD part. The R9 M375 posts 9682, while the MX330 manages 9019. The delta here is 7.4%, a much narrower margin than the OpenCL test. Vulkan workloads may be less sensitive to the architectural differences that show up so strongly in OpenCL, or the MX330's newer driver stack and feature set may help it compete more effectively in this API. Still, the R9 M375 holds the win.

Looking at the broader database context, the average benchmark score for the R9 M375 is 10070, which places it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs. The MX330 averages 8458, sitting at the 43rd percentile. The percentile gap is modest, but the raw score difference is roughly 19% in favor of the AMD card.

The nearest rival data adds perspective. The R9 M375's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M at 10043 (0.3% behind), followed by the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M at 10013 (0.6% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M at 9959 (1.1% behind). On the other side, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A outscores it by 2%. The MX330, meanwhile, sits nearly level with the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462, 0% delta), the AMD Radeon 880M (8436, 0.3% ahead of the MX330), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8427, 0.4% ahead). The Intel Arc A380 beats it by 1.2%. In other words, the R9 M375 competes in a higher performance tier than the MX330, even though both are entry-level mobile parts.

Architecture Differences

These two GPUs come from different manufacturers, different process nodes, and different eras of mobile graphics design. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP108B chip, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. That process advantage is significant: 14 nm allows for much higher transistor density, and the data confirms it. The MX330 packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. The R9 M375 has fewer transistors overall (1,500 million) on a much larger die (123 mm²), giving it a density of just 12.2 million per square millimeter. The MX330 is nearly twice as dense.

Clock speeds tell a complementary story. The MX330 runs at a base clock of 1531 MHz and a boost of 1594 MHz. The R9 M375 is far slower in raw clock terms: 1000 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost. The memory clocks also differ sharply. The MX330's memory runs at 1752 MHz with 7 Gbps effective, while the R9 M375's memory is at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. The MX330's memory clock is roughly four times higher in effective terms.

The compute configurations are arranged very differently. The R9 M375 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The MX330 has only 384 shading units and 24 TMUs, but it also has 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer shaders, the MX330 achieves comparable pixel throughput: 25.50 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s for the R9 M375. Texture rate is close as well: 38.26 GTexel/s for the MX330 versus 40.60 GTexel/s for the R9 M375. The MX330's higher clocks compensate for its narrower layout. In raw FP32 compute, the R9 M375 edges ahead at 1,299.2 GFLOPS versus 1,224.2 GFLOPS for the MX330. The MX330 does list FP16 capability at 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64), while the R9 M375 has no recorded FP16 figure.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. Both cards have 2 GB, but the R9 M375 uses DDR3 on a 128 bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX330 uses GDDR5 on a 64 bit bus, yet delivers 56.06 GB/s. The GDDR5 memory is so much faster that the narrower bus still doubles the bandwidth. The MX330 also draws far less power: its TDP is a mere 10 W, while the R9 M375 has no TDP recorded in the database. The MX330 is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, whereas the R9 M375's slot width and power connector details are not recorded. The MX330 connects via PCIe 3.0 x4, while the R9 M375 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Feature support also diverges. The R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer Vulkan version and higher DirectX feature level may explain why the MX330 comes closer in the Vulkan benchmark despite losing the OpenCL test by a wide margin.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 wins in raw compute-oriented workloads. Its OpenCL score of 10457 versus 7896, a 32.4% margin, suggests it is the stronger choice for GPU compute tasks that leverage OpenCL. The card also wins in Vulkan, but by a narrower 7.4%, indicating that API-specific optimization can reduce the gap. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the R9 M375 is clearly the more capable part.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins in efficiency and modern feature support. Its 10 W TDP, IGP form factor, and lack of power connectors make it far easier to integrate into thin, low-power laptops. The R9 M375 has no TDP recorded, but its 28 nm process and 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die suggest it consumes considerably more power. The MX330's 14 nm process and much smaller die (74 mm²) point to a more thermally manageable design.

The MX330 also offers a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_1) and a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170). Games or applications that rely on newer API features may favor the MX330 even if raw benchmark scores are lower. The MX330's double memory bandwidth (56.06 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s) could also help in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios, even though the R9 M375 has a wider memory bus.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 has an average benchmark score of 10070, compared to 8458 for the NVIDIA GeForce MX330.

Q: How much faster is the R9 M375 in OpenCL?

A: The R9 M375 scores 10457 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the MX330 scores 7896. That is a 32.4% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Does the MX330 win any benchmark test?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the R9 M375 wins both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests. The MX330 has 0 wins.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 has 640 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has 384 shading units.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The MX330 delivers 56.06 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64 bit bus. The R9 M375 delivers 28.80 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128 bit bus. The MX330 has nearly double the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer DirectX version?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The AMD Radeon R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification category.

• Architecture: GCN 1.0 (AMD) versus Pascal (NVIDIA)
• Process node: 28 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (Samsung)
• Transistors: 1,500 million versus 1,800 million
• Die size: 123 mm² versus 74 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.2M / mm² versus 24.3M / mm²
• Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 1531 MHz
• Boost clock: 1015 MHz versus 1594 MHz
• Memory clock: 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective versus 1752 MHz, 7 Gbps effective
• Memory type: DDR3 versus GDDR5
• Memory bus width: 128 bit versus 64 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s
• Shading units: 640 versus 384
• TMUs: 40 versus 24
• ROPs: 16 versus 16 (no difference)
• Pixel rate: 16.24 GPixel/s versus 25.50 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 40.60 GTexel/s versus 38.26 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,299.2 GFLOPS versus 1,224.2 GFLOPS
• FP16: not recorded versus 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64)
• TDP: not recorded versus 10 W
• Slot width: not recorded versus IGP
• Power connectors: not recorded versus none
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x4
• DirectX: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 versus 1.4
• Release date: 2015-05-04 versus 2020-02-09
• Production status: End-of-life for both

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for raw performance: the AMD Radeon R9 M375 is the faster GPU. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a 32.4% lead in OpenCL, and a 7.4% lead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 10070 places it at the 48th percentile, five points above the MX330's 43rd percentile. Users who prioritize compute throughput should choose the R9 M375 without hesitation.

However, the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 is not without merit. Its 10 W TDP and IGP form factor make it a far more practical choice for ultra-portable laptops. The 14 nm process, smaller die, and higher clock speeds indicate a more modern, efficient design. Its 56.06 GB/s memory bandwidth, despite the narrower 64 bit bus, is a significant advantage in memory-heavy tasks. The newer DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4 support also make it more future-proof for software that leverages those APIs.

The choice depends on the use case. For compute-heavy workloads and maximum benchmark performance, the R9 M375 is the pick. For power efficiency, modern API support, and integration into thin-and-light systems, the MX330 is the better fit. The benchmark data does not equivocate on performance, but the specification sheet shows the MX330 was designed for a different priority: efficiency over outright speed.