AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile represent two different philosophies in entry-level mobile graphics: a discrete GPU with its own memory pool, and an integrated solution sharing system RAM. Both are end-of-life parts now, but the recorded benchmark data gives a clear verdict. The MX330 wins both head-to-head tests in the database, taking the OpenCL comparison by 6.2% and the Vulkan comparison by a decisive 29.4%. The Vega 8 counters with structural advantages of its own, including more shading units, dramatically faster half-precision throughput, and a deeper feature lineage within AMD's APU stack. Here is how the two stack up.

Where Each One Wins

The MX330 wins where clock discipline and dedicated memory bandwidth matter. Its boost clock of 1594 MHz runs far above the Vega 8's 1101 MHz ceiling, and its 2 GB of GDDR5 delivers a fixed 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 8's memory subsystem is entirely system dependent, which means its effective bandwidth floats with the host platform's RAM configuration. That difference shows up directly in the Vulkan result: 9019 for the MX330 against 6970 for the Vega 8, a 29.4% gap. Vulkan is the more modern, driver-sensitive API of the two tests recorded here, and it favors the discrete part convincingly.

The Vega 8 wins on raw hardware scale in specific categories. It carries 512 shading units to the MX330's 384, and 32 texture mapping units to the MX330's 24. Its half-precision story is the standout: 2.255 TFLOPS at a 2:1 FP16 ratio, versus 19.13 GFLOPS at a punishing 1:64 ratio on the MX330. Any workload leaning on packed half-precision math, certain compute kernels for instance, favors the AMD design by more than two orders of magnitude in theoretical throughput. The Vega 8 also sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs in the database, which places both parts firmly in entry-level territory, with the MX330 at the 43rd percentile holding a modest overall edge.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster overall?

A: The MX330. It won both head-to-head benchmarks, with an average benchmark score of 8458 against the Vega 8's 7203.

Q: How large is the gap in the Vulkan test?

A: The MX330 scored 9019 versus 6970 for the Vega 8, a 29.4% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Do either of these GPUs support ray tracing or AI acceleration hardware?

A: No. Neither part has RT cores or tensor cores. Both rely on general shader hardware for any such workloads.

Q: Which GPU has its own memory?

A: The MX330, with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus providing 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 8 is an integrated solution with system-shared memory.

Q: Which GPUs do these compete against in the database?

A: The MX330's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 880M (8436 average score) and the Intel Arc A380 (8558). The Vega 8's closest matches include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7222) and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7170).

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked end-of-life. The MX330 was released on 2020-02-09 and the Vega 8 Mobile on 2019-01-07.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Two tests are recorded for this pairing, and the MX330 takes both.

The OpenCL result is the closer fight. The MX330 scores 7896 and the Vega 8 scores 7435, a 6.2% margin. OpenCL compute on the Vega 8 benefits from its larger shader array and strong FP16 throughput, and the data reflects that: this is nearly a draw in relative terms. For a integrated solution sharing system memory to land within single-digit percentage points of a discrete part in a general compute API is a respectable result.

The Vulkan test is where the pairing separates. The MX330 scores 9019 while the Vega 8 manages 6970, a 29.4% gulf. That is the difference between two adjacent performance classes rather than two variants of the same class. The MX330's Vulkan score even exceeds its own OpenCL score, while the Vega 8's Vulkan result falls well below its OpenCL result, a divergence that suggests the discrete NVIDIA part extracts more from the modern graphics API path than the Raven-M design manages.

Context from the rivals list reinforces the picture. The MX330's average of 8458 sits within a hair of the AMD Radeon HD 8870M at 8462, effectively dead level, and just 1.2% behind the Intel Arc A380 at 8558. The Vega 8's 7203 average lands it near the GTX 750 at 7222, which it trails by only 0.3%. In database terms, the MX330 occupies a slightly higher tier, and the head-to-head sweep confirms it.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every measurable axis.

Clocks diverge sharply. The MX330 runs a 1531 MHz base and 1594 MHz boost on its core, with memory at 1752 MHz, 7 Gbps effective. The Vega 8 runs a 300 MHz base and an 1101 MHz boost, with memory clocks that are system shared by definition.

Memory is the defining split. The MX330 ships 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 8 has no dedicated memory of any kind: size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system dependent.

The shader backends favor each side in different ways. The Vega 8 has more shading units (512 vs 384) and more TMUs (32 vs 24). The MX330 has double the ROPs (16 vs 8), which feeds directly into its pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s against the Vega 8's 8.808 GPixel/s, a nearly threefold advantage in pixel output. Texture rates are closer: 38.26 GTexel/s for the MX330 versus 35.23 GTexel/s for the Vega 8, despite the AMD part's TMU count advantage, a consequence of the NVIDIA part's much higher clocks.

FP32 throughput lands at 1224.2 GFLOPS for the MX330 and 1127.4 GFLOPS for the Vega 8, a narrow 8.6% edge for NVIDIA. FP16 flips the table entirely: 2.255 TFLOPS for the Vega 8 at 2:1, versus 19.13 GFLOPS for the MX330 at 1:64.

Power envelopes differ considerably. The MX330 is a 10 W part; the Vega 8 carries a 25 W TDP. The bus interfaces also differ: PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX330, IGP for the Vega 8. Vulkan API support is listed at 1.4 for the MX330 and 1.3 for the Vega 8, with DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 common to both.

Architecture Differences

Both parts are built on 14 nm processes, but by different foundries: Samsung for the MX330's GP108B and GlobalFoundries for the Vega 8's Raven-M. The MX330 uses NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, while the Vega 8 implements AMD's GCN 5.0.

The integration strategies explain the transistor counts. The Vega 8's 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die reflect its nature as part of a full APU, with the GPU sharing a Raven Ridge-M silicon with CPU complexes. The MX330's 1,800 million transistors on a compact 74 mm² die are dedicated purely to graphics. Transistor densities end up remarkably similar, 24.3M per mm² for NVIDIA and 23.5M per mm² for AMD, indicating both foundries were operating at comparable maturity on that node.

Lineage runs in opposite directions. The Vega 8 Mobile fits into AMD's Vega IGP generation (Raven Ridge-M), with a GCN 3.0 IGP predecessor and the Navi II IGP as its successor. The MX330 belongs to NVIDIA's GeForce MX 3xx generation, with no predecessor or successor listed in the database. Both are classified as IGP-width slots with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs, appropriate for their mobile targets.

Neither architecture includes RT cores or tensor cores, so hardware-accelerated ray tracing and dedicated AI instructions are off the table for both. The architectural story is therefore straightforward: Pascal's high clocks, dedicated GDDR5, and stronger ROP and pixel throughput deliver the measured performance win, while GCN 5.0's wider shader array and native FP16 throughput give the Vega 8 its isolated theoretical strengths. The benchmark record awards the overall victory to the MX330, by 6.2% in OpenCL and 29.4% in Vulkan.