Intel UHD Graphics 750 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data places the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750 in both tracked workloads. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the MX330 scores 7896 against 6743 for the Intel part, a 17.1% advantage. This is the larger of the two margins, showing a clear gap in general compute throughput when both are pushed under the OpenCL API.

The Vulkan results tighten the race somewhat, but the MX330 still wins. Its score of 9019 beats the UHD Graphics 750’s 8138 by 10.8%. While the Intel solution narrows the deficit under Vulkan, it does not overtake the NVIDIA part in either test. The final tally is 2 wins for the MX330, 0 for the Intel UHD Graphics 750.

Context from the database’s nearest-rival comparisons reinforces these numbers. The MX330’s average benchmark score is 8458, placing it at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon HD 8870M at 8462 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon 880M at 8436 (0.3% delta for the MX330), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX at 8427 (0.4% delta for the MX330). The only rival it trails is the Intel Arc A380 at 8558, a 1.2% gap. This means the MX330 sits in a tight cluster where a few points separate it from several comparable mobile and desktop parts.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750’s average score is 7441, putting it at the 40th percentile. Its nearest rivals are similarly close: the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7447 (0.1% behind for Intel), the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7425 (0.2% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7472 (0.4% behind). The Intel Arc A310 leads this group at 7550, a 1.4% gap. The data shows the UHD Graphics 750 is competitive with older discrete mobile GPUs but sits clearly below the MX330’s performance tier.

Across both APIs, the MX330’s wins are consistent but not overwhelming. A 17.1% lead in OpenCL is substantial for integrated-vs-discrete comparisons, while the 10.8% Vulkan margin shows the Intel architecture closes some ground when using that API. Still, the database records no test where the Intel part takes the lead.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice for most users. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins both benchmark categories and holds a higher average score (8458 versus 7441). It also sits at a higher percentile rank (43rd versus 40th). If raw performance in these two workloads is the only criterion, the MX330 is the stronger option.

However, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is not without merit. Its Vulkan score of 8138 is within 10.8% of the MX330’s 9019, which is a reasonably close margin for a processor-integrated GPU against a discrete mobile chip. The Intel part also carries a higher TDP rating of 15 W compared to the MX330’s 10 W, which may reflect different design priorities rather than a direct performance indicator.

For users who need the best possible OpenCL or Vulkan numbers, the MX330 is the clear pick. For those who are already on a platform with the UHD Graphics 750 and want to avoid adding a discrete GPU, the recorded deltas suggest the integrated solution is usable, though it will trail the MX330 in every measured workload.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins in both benchmark categories, so its advantage is broad. Its OpenCL lead of 17.1% is the standout result, indicating stronger general-purpose compute performance. This could matter for applications that offload work to the GPU through OpenCL, such as certain encoding, rendering, or analysis tasks. The Vulkan win of 10.8% shows it also handles modern graphics APIs with more headroom.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 does not win any measured test, but its closer Vulkan result points to a relative strength. The 10.8% gap in Vulkan versus the 17.1% gap in OpenCL suggests the Intel architecture is better optimized for Vulkan workloads than for OpenCL ones. For users running Vulkan-based games or applications, the Intel part will feel less far behind than it does in OpenCL-heavy scenarios. Its system-shared memory design also means it has no dedicated VRAM allocation, which can simplify system memory management in low-power builds.

In terms of absolute performance tiers, the MX330’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8870M and the GeForce GTX 675MX, both older discrete parts. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 sits alongside the AMD Radeon HD 8850M and the Radeon R7 350. This places the two GPUs in adjacent but distinct performance bands, with the MX330 consistently above.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has an average score of 8458, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441.

Q: How large is the gap in OpenCL performance?

A: The MX330 scores 7896 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 17.1% higher than the UHD Graphics 750’s 6743.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 750 win any benchmark test?

A: No. The database records 2 wins for the MX330 and 0 for the Intel part across the two head-to-head tests.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the NVIDIA GeForce MX330?

A: The nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462, 0% delta), the AMD Radeon 880M (8436, 0.3% delta for the MX330), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8427, 0.4% delta for the MX330).

Q: How does the Intel UHD Graphics 750 compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average score of 7472, which is 0.4% higher than the UHD Graphics 750’s 7441.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The MX330 sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the UHD Graphics 750 is at the 40th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and use fundamentally different designs. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP108B chip, produced on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 uses the Generation 12.1 architecture with the Rocket Lake chip, fabricated on Intel’s 14 nm+++ process. The database does not list transistor count or die size for the Intel part.

The compute configurations differ substantially. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Intel part has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the NVIDIA chip has 50% more shading units, 50% more TMUs, and double the ROPs. Pixel rate for the MX330 is 25.50 GPixel/s versus 10.40 GPixel/s for the Intel, and texture rate is 38.26 GTexel/s versus 20.80 GTexel/s.

Raw floating-point throughput also favors NVIDIA. The MX330 delivers 1,224.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel part manages 665.6 GFLOPS. The FP16 picture is reversed: the Intel UHD Graphics 750 outputs 1,331.2 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the MX330 is limited to 19.13 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. This indicates the Intel architecture has a much stronger half-precision path, though the database does not include a test that isolates this capability.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The MX330 uses 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 relies on system-shared memory, with its bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent. This means the Intel GPU’s memory performance is tied to the host system’s RAM, while the NVIDIA part has a fixed, dedicated pool.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds vary by design. The MX330 has a base clock of 1531 MHz and a boost clock of 1594 MHz, with memory clocked at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The Intel UHD Graphics 750 has a much lower base clock of 300 MHz but boosts to 1300 MHz. Memory clock is not applicable to the Intel part, as it uses system-shared memory.

Power ratings differ, with the MX330 rated at 10 W and the Intel part at 15 W. Both are integrated-style GPUs (IGP slot width), but the MX330 has no power connectors while the Intel part’s connector status is not listed. The bus interface also differs: the MX330 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the Intel part connects via a Ring Bus.

Display outputs follow their respective platforms. The MX330’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent, while the Intel part’s are motherboard dependent. This reflects their intended usage in laptops versus desktop or embedded platforms.

The API support is identical: both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores listed.

Release dates differ by about a year. The MX330 was released on February 9, 2020, while the UHD Graphics 750 came on March 29, 2021. Both are marked as end-of-life production status. Neither has a launch MSRP listed in the database, so no pricing information is available.