AMD Radeon RX 550X vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X records an average benchmark score of 10481, which places it 24% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce MX330's 8458 average. The RX 550X sits in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX330 sits in the 43rd percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X scores 9662 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the NVIDIA GeForce MX330's 7896 by 22.4%. This is the smaller of the two deltas between the cards.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The gap widens in Vulkan. The RX 550X scores 11299 versus the MX330's 9019, a 25.3% advantage for the AMD part. This is the largest benchmark difference recorded in the head-to-head data.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X offers 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth over a 128-bit bus, compared to 56.06 GB/s on the NVIDIA GeForce MX330's narrower 64-bit interface. The AMD card also ships with 4 GB of GDDR5, double the 2 GB on the NVIDIA part.

Q: What are the power requirements of each card?

A: The RX 550X has a 50 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the MX330 draws just 10 W and has no suggested PSU listed. Neither card requires auxiliary power connectors.

Q: Which GPU was released later?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 launched on February 9, 2020, while the AMD Radeon RX 550X was released on December 15, 2018. Both are now end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. AMD's Radeon RX 550X is built on GCN 4.0, using the Lexa chip from the Polaris (RX 500X) generation, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. NVIDIA's GeForce MX330 uses Pascal architecture with the GP108B chip, also on a 14 nm node but fabricated by Samsung, and belongs to the GeForce MX (3xx) generation.

The transistor counts reveal different design philosophies. AMD packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 21.4M per mm². NVIDIA fits 1,800 million transistors into a smaller 74 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 24.3M per mm². Despite the smaller die, the MX330's higher density suggests a more compact implementation of its Pascal cores.

Shader resources differ significantly. The RX 550X carries 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and the same 16 ROPs. This gives the AMD card a 33% advantage in shading units and TMUs, which directly influences its texture and pixel processing capabilities.

Clock behavior also separates the two. The MX330 runs at a much higher base clock of 1531 MHz and boost of 1594 MHz, compared to the RX 550X's 1100 MHz base and 1183 MHz boost. However, the AMD card's wider memory bus and larger memory pool compensate for its lower clocks in bandwidth-bound tasks.

Feature support shows a split. Both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the MX330 lists DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the RX 550X's 12 (12_0), a minor feature-level edge. In Vulkan, the MX330 supports version 1.4 while the RX 550X lists 1.3. Neither card includes ray tracing or tensor cores.

The RX 550X is a dual-slot card with display outputs including DVI, HDMI 2.0b, and DisplayPort 1.4a. The MX330 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with portable-device-dependent outputs, reflecting its laptop-oriented design. The AMD card uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the NVIDIA part uses a narrower PCIe 3.0 x4 connection.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a clear sweep for the AMD Radeon RX 550X, winning both tests with substantial margins. The two benchmark categories, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, measure different compute workloads and show consistent AMD superiority.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 550X scores 9662 against the MX330's 7896. That 22.4% delta reflects the AMD card's wider memory bus and higher shading unit count. OpenCL workloads often scale with raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth, both of which favor the RX 550X. The NVIDIA card's higher clocks (1531 MHz base versus 1100 MHz) cannot close the gap created by fewer cores and a 64-bit memory path.

The Vulkan test produces an even larger spread. The RX 550X reaches 11299, while the MX330 manages 9019, a 25.3% difference. Vulkan's lower overhead can expose architectural efficiency, and here the GCN 4.0 design with 512 shaders outperforms the 384-shader Pascal part despite Pascal's clock advantage. The RX 550X's raw FP32 throughput of 1,211.4 GFLOPS versus the MX330's 1,224.2 GFLOPS is nearly identical, yet the AMD card still wins decisively in both compute APIs, suggesting memory subsystem advantages play a decisive role.

The MX330's FP16 performance of 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio) is dramatically lower than the RX 550X's 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio). While neither card targets FP16 workloads specifically, this 63x gap in half-precision throughput highlights a fundamental architectural difference that could matter in mixed-precision compute tasks.

Pixel and texture rates tell a nuanced story. The MX330 achieves a higher pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s versus 18.93 GPixel/s for the RX 550X, thanks to its much higher clocks and equal 16 ROPs. However, texture rate is nearly identical: 38.26 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 37.86 GTexel/s for AMD. This means the MX330 wins in fill-rate-limited rasterization scenarios, while the RX 550X pulls ahead in memory-heavy compute workloads.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. The RX 550X's 10481 average sits 24% above the MX330's 8458. In the database, the RX 550X's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10400, 0.8% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10362, 1.2% delta), placing it in a competitive mid-range bracket. The MX330's nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462, 0% delta) and the Intel Arc A380 (8558, 1.2% delta), cluster at a lower performance tier.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 550X | NVIDIA GeForce MX330 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Lexa | GP108B |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Pascal |

| Generation | Polaris (RX 500X) | GeForce MX (3xx) |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Samsung |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 1,800 million |

| Die size | 103 mm² | 74 mm² |

| Transistor density | 21.4M / mm² | 24.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1100 MHz | 1531 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1183 MHz | 1594 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 1752 MHz, 7 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 56.06 GB/s |

| Shading units | 512 | 384 |

| TMUs | 32 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 18.93 GPixel/s | 25.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 37.86 GTexel/s | 38.26 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,211.4 GFLOPS | 1,224.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 50 W | 10 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Display outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Length | 145 mm (5.7 inches) | Not listed |

| Release date | 2018-12-15 | 2020-02-09 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 550X wins in every recorded benchmark category, but the broader picture shows distinct strengths for each card depending on workload type.

The RX 550X is the choice for compute-heavy tasks. Its 4 GB memory pool and 128-bit bus deliver 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, more than 70% higher than the MX330's 56.06 GB/s. For OpenCL and Vulkan workloads that stress memory throughput, the RX 550X's 22.4% and 25.3% victories in the head-to-head tests demonstrate clear superiority. The 1:1 FP16 ratio (1,211.4 GFLOPS) versus the MX330's 1:64 ratio (19.13 GFLOPS) makes the AMD card dramatically better suited for half-precision compute, should such workloads arise. The RX 550X also offers dual-slot cooling and discrete display outputs, making it a more flexible option for desktop systems.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins in power efficiency and fill-rate-bound scenarios. Its 10 W TDP is one-fifth of the RX 550X's 50 W, making it the obvious pick for thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is minimal. The MX330's higher pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s versus 18.93 GPixel/s means it can rasterize simple scenes faster, which can benefit older or lighter games that are fill-rate limited rather than bandwidth limited. Its higher clocks (1531 MHz base, 1594 MHz boost) also give it an edge in latency-sensitive tasks that do not scale with core count.

For gaming, the split is less clean. The MX330's DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level and Vulkan 1.4 support give it a slight API advantage, but the RX 550X's wider memory bus and double memory capacity provide more headroom for modern textures and higher resolutions. In practice, the RX 550X's benchmark wins suggest it handles the majority of gaming workloads better, while the MX330 may hold its own in esports titles with low memory requirements.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, and neither has a successor listed in the database. The RX 550X's predecessor is listed as Polaris with a successor of Vega, while the MX330 has no lineage entries. Buyers today would be looking at used or clearance stock for either part.

In summary, the RX 550X is the stronger performer across measured compute benchmarks, with a 24% average score advantage. The MX330 counters with a 5x lower power draw and a smaller footprint suited for portable designs. The data shows no scenario where the MX330 wins a recorded benchmark, but its efficiency profile addresses a different market segment entirely.