AMD Radeon R9 M375X vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a split decision between the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, with each GPU claiming one victory across the two tested workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R9 M375X scores 8273 against the NVIDIA GeForce MX330’s 7896, a margin of 4.6% in AMD’s favor. That OpenCL result aligns with the AMD part’s raw compute specifications — 1,299.2 GFLOPS FP32 versus 1,224.2 GFLOPS for the NVIDIA chip — though the gap in measured performance is narrower than the theoretical specification difference might suggest.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the outcome decisively. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 posts 9019, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375X manages 8377. That is a 7.7% advantage for the NVIDIA part, and notably the MX330’s Vulkan score exceeds its own OpenCL result by over 1,100 points, whereas the R9 M375X’s Vulkan score is only about 100 points above its OpenCL figure. The MX330’s stronger Vulkan showing likely reflects its newer Pascal architecture’s more efficient API handling, even though both GPUs support modern graphics APIs.

Looking at the broader context from the average benchmark scores, the two parts sit essentially at parity. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 averages 8458 across all benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375X averages 8325. That difference of 133 points works out to roughly 1.6% — within the noise of typical run-to-run variance. Both GPUs land in the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier in the database’s overall distribution.

The nearest-rival data reinforces this close grouping. The MX330’s closest competitors include the AMD Radeon HD 8870M at 8462 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon 880M at 8436 (0.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX at 8427 (0.4% ahead). Meanwhile, the R9 M375X sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 at 8265 (0.7% ahead of that rival) and trails the same GeForce GTX 675MX by 1.2%. Notably, the two GPUs in this comparison appear in each other’s nearest-rival lists — the MX330 is listed as 1.6% ahead of the R9 M375X in the AMD part’s rival data, while the R9 M375X is absent from the MX330’s top-four rivals, suggesting the MX330’s closest competitors skew slightly higher in average score.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M375X takes the compute-oriented OpenCL workload. Its 8273 OpenCL score beats the MX330 by 4.6%, a meaningful margin for tasks that leverage general-purpose GPU compute through OpenCL. This aligns with the R9 M375X’s higher raw throughput numbers: 640 shading units and 40 texture mapping units against the MX330’s 384 shading units and 24 TMUs. The AMD part also delivers 40.60 GTexel/s texture fill rate versus 38.26 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA chip. Users running OpenCL-based acceleration — common in some productivity and scientific applications — would see a measurable benefit from the R9 M375X.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins the Vulkan workload by a more substantial margin. Its 9019 Vulkan score outpaces the R9 M375X’s 8377 by 7.7%, and this is the larger of the two deltas in the head-to-head results. Vulkan is increasingly the API of choice for modern game engines and emulators, so the MX330’s advantage here suggests better real-world performance in Vulkan-titled games despite its lower theoretical compute figures. The MX330’s higher boost clock — 1594 MHz versus 1015 MHz — and its more efficient 14 nm Samsung process likely contribute to this API-specific strength.

Pixel throughput also favors the NVIDIA part. The MX330 achieves 25.50 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s for the R9 M375X, a 57% advantage in pixel fill rate even though both GPUs have 16 ROPs. This difference stems from the MX330’s much higher clock speeds. In rasterization-heavy workloads that stress pixel output — certain older games or lightweight 3D applications — the MX330 would pull ahead despite its narrower memory bus.

Memory bandwidth paints a different picture. The R9 M375X offers 72.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the MX330 manages 56.06 GB/s over a 64-bit bus. That 28% bandwidth advantage for AMD could help in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios like high-resolution texture streaming, though the benchmark data does not directly isolate this factor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 averages 8458 across all benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375X averages 8325. The MX330 leads by approximately 1.6%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 scores 9019 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the AMD Radeon R9 M375X’s 8377 by 7.7%. This is the largest margin in either direction across the tested workloads.

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375X scores 8273 in Geekbench OpenCL, ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX330’s 7896 by 4.6%.

Q: Do both GPUs occupy the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and the AMD Radeon R9 M375X sit at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs in the database.

Q: How does the R9 M375X compare to its nearest rival, the Quadro K1200?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375X averages 8325, which is 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K1200’s average score of 8265.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375X provides 72.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 provides 56.06 GB/s over a 64-bit bus — a 28% bandwidth advantage for AMD.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 uses a 14 nm process from Samsung, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375X uses a 28 nm process from TSMC. Transistor counts are close — 1,800 million for NVIDIA versus 1,500 million for AMD — but the die sizes diverge sharply: the MX330 measures 74 mm² against the R9 M375X’s 123 mm². This yields a transistor density of 24.3 million transistors per mm² for the NVIDIA chip versus 12.2 million for the AMD chip, reflecting the process node advantage.

Clock speeds favor NVIDIA substantially. The MX330 runs at a 1531 MHz base clock and 1594 MHz boost, while the R9 M375X runs at 925 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the MX330’s memory operates at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the R9 M375X’s memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Despite the AMD part’s wider 128-bit bus, the NVIDIA part’s faster memory clock narrows the bandwidth gap to 56.06 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s.

Compute unit counts favor AMD. The R9 M375X packs 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, while the MX330 has 384 shading units and 24 TMUs. Both have 16 ROPs. In terms of rates, the MX330 achieves higher pixel fill (25.50 GPixel/s versus 16.24 GPixel/s) but lower texture fill (38.26 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s). FP32 throughput slightly favors AMD at 1,299.2 GFLOPS versus 1,224.2 GFLOPS. The MX330 also lists FP16 performance at 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the R9 M375X has no listed FP16 figure.

Power and interface specifications differ as well. The MX330 has a 10 W TDP, integrated form factor (IGP slot width), and no power connectors, while the R9 M375X has no listed TDP, slot width, or power connector data. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x4 for NVIDIA and PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD. Display outputs are listed as portable-device-dependent for the MX330 and not specified for the R9 M375X.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 is built on the Pascal architecture with the GP108B chip, part of the GeForce MX (3xx) generation. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip, belonging to the Gem System (R9 M300) generation. These are fundamentally different design philosophies: Pascal is a later, more efficient architecture optimized for higher clocks and modern API efficiency, while GCN 1.0 is an earlier design that emphasized raw compute throughput.

API support differs in notable ways. The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R9 M375X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX feature level difference — 12_1 versus 11_1 — indicates the NVIDIA part supports more advanced DirectX 12 features. The Vulkan version difference (1.4 versus 1.2.170) similarly shows the MX330’s newer driver stack and API support.

The process and foundry choices reflect different design eras. NVIDIA uses a 14 nm Samsung process, while AMD uses a 28 nm TSMC process. This two-generation process gap explains the MX330’s dramatically higher transistor density (24.3M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm²) and its much lower 10 W TDP. The R9 M375X has no listed TDP, but its older 28 nm process and higher transistor count on a larger die suggest significantly higher power draw.

Release timing also differs. The MX330 was released on February 9, 2020, while the R9 M375X came out on May 4, 2015 — nearly five years earlier. Both are now end-of-life products. The R9 M375X lists its predecessor as Solar System and successor as Polaris Mobile, while the MX330 lists neither.

The Verdict

The data presents a balanced picture with a slight overall edge to the NVIDIA GeForce MX330. The MX330 holds a 1.6% lead in average benchmark score (8458 versus 8325) and a commanding 7.7% advantage in Vulkan performance (9019 versus 8377). It also offers dramatically better power efficiency with a 10 W TDP, a smaller 74 mm² die, and a more advanced 14 nm process. For users prioritizing modern API performance — particularly Vulkan-based games and applications — the MX330 is the stronger choice.

The AMD Radeon R9 M375X fights back in OpenCL compute with a 4.6% win (8273 versus 7896) and offers 28% more memory bandwidth (72.00 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s) over a wider 128-bit bus. It also has more shading units (640 versus 384) and higher FP32 throughput (1,299.2 GFLOPS versus 1,224.2 GFLOPS). For workloads that lean heavily on OpenCL acceleration, the R9 M375X would be the better pick, though its older GCN 1.0 architecture and lack of Vulkan 1.4 support limit its long-term software compatibility.

The percentile data tells a straightforward story: both GPUs sit at the 43rd percentile, meaning they deliver essentially equivalent overall performance in the database’s ranking system. The nearest-rival lists confirm this parity — the MX330’s closest competitors range from 0% to 1.2% away, and the R9 M375X’s rivals range from 0.7% ahead to 1.6% behind. Neither part offers a decisive all-around advantage.

Choose the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 if Vulkan performance, power efficiency, or modern API support (DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4) matters most. Choose the AMD Radeon R9 M375X if OpenCL compute performance or memory bandwidth is the priority, particularly in bandwidth-sensitive tasks. For general use, the data suggests either GPU will deliver statistically similar results, with the MX330’s newer architecture providing a slight edge in overall averages and API compatibility.