Intel Arc A310 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

The database entries for the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and Intel Arc A310 present an interesting puzzle: two entry-level GPUs with nearly identical average benchmark scores, yet wildly different results in the two tests where they meet head-to-head. The MX330 sits at an average score of 8458 and the 43rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the A310 lands at 7550 and the 40th percentile. On paper they are peers. In direct measurement, they are anything but. What follows unpacks that contradiction and asks what the data really implies for each card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two shared tests exist for both parts in the database, and both are landslides.

Geekbench OpenCL: the Intel Arc A310 scores 30607 against 7896 for the MX330. That is a 74.2 percent gap in Intel's favor, one of the largest margins recorded between two cards this close in overall standing.

Geekbench Vulkan: the A310 scores 28964 against 9019 for the MX330, a 68.9 percent advantage. Again, a rout.

So the head-to-head record is 2-0 for Intel, and it is not close in either test. Yet the aggregate numbers tell a calmer story. The MX330's average benchmark score of 8458 slightly exceeds the A310's 7550, and the MX330 ranks in the 43rd percentile versus 40 for the A310. How can a card that loses every shared test by roughly seventy percent carry the higher average? The answer lies in the composition of the underlying test suites: the MX330's average is built from far fewer recorded results, while the A310's average spans a much wider set of PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11 and 12 tests plus compute, 2D and 3D measurements, several of which sit in the double digits. The averages are therefore not directly comparable. What can be compared, is compared above, and Intel wins every time.

It is worth placing the two within their own neighborhoods. The MX330's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (average 8462, a dead-even 0 percent delta), the AMD Radeon 880M (8436, 0.3 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8427, 0.4 percent) and, curiously, the Intel Arc A380 (8558, with the MX330 trailing by 1.2 percent). The A310's closest competitors are the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7557, 0.1 percent), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580, 0.4 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, with the A310 1 percent ahead) and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, 1.4 percent ahead). In other words, the database's aggregate ranking slots the MX330 alongside older mainstream mobile parts, and the A310 alongside compact desktop entry cards. Different eras, different classes, similar aggregate scores.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the shared benchmarks?

A: The Intel Arc A310 wins both. It takes Geekbench OpenCL 30607 to 7896 and Geekbench Vulkan 28964 to 9019, margins of 74.2 and 68.9 percent respectively.

Q: Why does the MX330 show a higher average score despite losing every head-to-head test?

A: The averages come from different pools of tests. The MX330's 8458 average is drawn from only two recorded Geekbench results, while the A310's 7550 average is diluted by a broad PassMark suite that includes low-scoring DirectX 9 through DirectX 12 runs (69, 31, 33 and 29 points) alongside strong compute numbers.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. The database marks both as end-of-life. The MX330 was released on 2020-02-09, the A310 on 2022-10-11.

Q: How do the raw compute capabilities compare?

A: The A310 delivers 2.688 TFLOPS of FP32 versus 1224.2 GFLOPS for the MX330, and 5.376 TFLOPS of FP16 versus 19.13 GFLOPS. The FP16 numbers are especially stark because the MX330 runs FP16 at a crippling 1:64 rate relative to FP32, while the A310 runs at a healthy 2:1.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing hardware?

A: Only the Intel Arc A310, with 6 RT cores. The MX330 has none, and neither card lists tensor cores.

Q: What interfaces do they use?

A: The MX330 connects over PCIe 3.0 x4, the A310 over PCIe 4.0 x8, doubling both the generational bandwidth and the lane count.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on recorded results, the Intel Arc A310 wins everywhere the two cards meet. Its OpenCL and Vulkan scores make it the clear choice for GPU compute workloads, general-purpose processing, and any Vulkan-based application. Its much larger memory allocation (4 GB versus 2 GB) and doubled memory bandwidth (124.0 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s) further support scenarios where data set size or throughput matters.

The MX330 has no recorded wins. Its case rests on secondary characteristics rather than benchmark outcomes: a 10 W TDP versus 30 W, an IGP-class slot width versus single-slot, and no power connectors on either part but a portable-device-dependent output configuration that suggests laptop integration. The A310, with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and a suggested 200 W system PSU, is clearly a desktop part. The MX330 is the only option of the two for tightly power-constrained mobile designs, even though the data shows it trades away the large majority of compute performance to get there.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every line of the spec sheet. The MX330 uses the GP108B chip on Pascal architecture; the A310 uses DG2-128 on Xe-HPG. Process node is 14 nm at Samsung for the MX330 versus 6 nm at TSMC for the A310. Transistor count is 1800 million versus 7200 million, on die sizes of 74 mm² versus 157 mm², giving transistor densities of 24.3M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm².

Clocks differ: the MX330 runs a 1531 MHz base and 1594 MHz boost, while the A310 runs a flat 1750 MHz base and boost. Memory is 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64 bit bus for the MX330, running at 7 Gbps effective for 56.06 GB/s; the A310 pairs 4 GB of GDDR6 with the same 64 bit bus at 15.5 Gbps effective, doubling throughput to 124.0 GB/s.

Shader resources diverge sharply: 384 shading units, 24 TMUs and 16 ROPs for the MX330 against 768 shading units, 32 TMUs and the same 16 ROPs for the A310. Pixel rate is 25.50 GPixel/s versus 28.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 38.26 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s. The A310 adds 6 RT cores; the MX330 has none.

Power and form factor also split: 10 W TDP, IGP slot width and no PSU recommendation for the MX330, versus 30 W TDP, single-slot width and a 200 W suggested PSU for the A310. Software support favors Intel on paper, with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1); OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 are identical. Lineage differs too: the A310 lists Xe Graphics as predecessor and Battlemage as successor, while the MX330 records neither.

Architecture Differences

These are two architectural philosophies separated by a full node transition and a design generation. The MX330's Pascal-based GP108B is a small, efficiency-first die: 74 mm² with 1800 million transistors on Samsung's 14 nm process, with no dedicated ray tracing or AI hardware and an FP16 implementation running at 1:64 of FP32 rate. That FP16 figure of 19.13 GFLOPS against 1224.2 GFLOPS FP32 signals a design from an era when half-precision throughput was simply not a priority in this class.

The A310's DG2-128 on Xe-HPG is a different animal: 7200 million transistors on TSMC's 6 nm process, nearly double the die area, and transistor density of 45.9M per mm² versus 24.3M. It carries 6 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, the feature-level tier that bundles modern rendering features. Its FP16 runs at 2:1, yielding 5.376 TFLOPS of half-precision throughput. The doubled shader count (768 versus 384) and higher flat clock (1750 MHz against a 1594 MHz boost) explain most of the raw compute gap.

Memory subsystems tell the same story. Both use a 64 bit bus, but the A310's GDDR6 at 15.5 Gbps effective delivers 124.0 GB/s, more than double the MX330's 56.06 GB/s of GDDR5 at 7 Gbps effective, and it doubles capacity to 4 GB. Host connectivity also leaps forward, from PCIe 3.0 x4 to PCIe 4.0 x8.

The Verdict

For anyone choosing strictly on benchmark data, the Intel Arc A310 is the pick. It wins every shared test, by margins near seventy percent, it doubles memory capacity and bandwidth, it doubles shading units, and it adds ray tracing hardware the MX330 simply lacks. Its sibling Arc A380 also appears in the MX330's own rival list at an average of 8558, reinforcing that the Alchemist generation occupies this performance band.

The MX330's remaining argument is power and integration: a 10 W TDP, IGP packaging and portable-device-dependent outputs mark it as a laptop-oriented solution where the A310's 30 W and four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs fit a desktop with a 200 W suggested PSU. If the constraint is thermals rather than performance, the MX330 is the only one of the two that fits. In every measured contest, the data says the A310 wins, and by a wide margin.