NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is decisively one-sided in the recorded database. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the GTX 1650 secures a clean sweep, winning both with enormous margins. The MX330 does not claim a single victory in any head-to-head test.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the MX330 records a score of 7896, while the GTX 1650 posts 29629. That is a delta of negative 73.4 percent from the perspective of the MX330, meaning the GTX 1650 outperforms it by roughly 3.75 times in raw compute throughput. The Vulkan test tells a similar story: the MX330 scores 9019, the GTX 1650 scores 33042, with a delta of negative 72.7 percent. Again, the GTX 1650 delivers nearly 3.7 times the performance in this graphics API workload.

These are not marginal differences. The GTX 1650 sits in a different performance tier entirely. The MX330’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 8458, while the GTX 1650’s average is 7472. Interestingly, the MX330 actually holds a higher average score than its rival in this aggregate metric, but that is because the MX330 only has two benchmark entries (both Geekbench tests), whereas the GTX 1650 has ten entries including several Passmark tests that drag its average down. The head-to-head results, which use the same tests for both cards, are the more reliable comparison, and they show overwhelming GTX 1650 dominance.

The percentile rankings place the MX330 at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, slightly ahead of the GTX 1650’s 40th percentile. This is a quirk of the different benchmark suites each card was subjected to, not an indication of real-world equivalence. When directly compared on identical workloads, the GTX 1650 is categorically faster.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 wins in every measured category that matters for gaming and general 3D rendering. In Geekbench OpenCL, its 29629 score versus the MX330’s 7896 represents a 73.4 percent advantage, which translates to substantially faster compute for physics simulations, image processing, and any OpenCL-accelerated application. The Vulkan result is similarly lopsided, with the GTX 1650’s 33042 dwarfing the MX330’s 9019, a 72.7 percent lead. For modern game engines that leverage Vulkan for low-overhead draw calls and multi-threaded rendering, this gap will manifest as playable frame rates on the GTX 1650 versus slideshow-level performance on the MX330.

The MX330 has no recorded wins in any benchmark. Its only potential advantage lies outside raw performance: it consumes just 10 watts of power, compared to the GTX 1650’s 75 watts. The MX330 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and a portable-device-dependent display output, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermal constraints dominate. The GTX 1650, by contrast, is a dual-slot card with a 250-watt suggested power supply, meaning it requires a system designed for discrete graphics.

For users who need a GPU that can handle everyday desktop compositing, video playback, and light productivity, the MX330’s lower power draw is the only scenario where it “wins,” but that is a system-design consideration rather than a benchmark victory. In every performance metric recorded, the GTX 1650 is the clear choice.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and foundries, which explains much of the performance gap. The MX330 is built on the GP108B chip, using the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip, based on the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. Its 4,700 million transistors occupy a 200 mm² die, with a slightly lower density of 23.5 million per square millimeter.

The Turing architecture brings significant compute improvements over Pascal. The GTX 1650’s FP32 throughput is listed at 2.984 TFLOPS, while the MX330 manages only 1,224.2 GFLOPS. More telling is the FP16 situation: the GTX 1650 delivers 5.967 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio to FP32, whereas the MX330 is severely limited to 19.13 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. This means the GTX 1650 can accelerate half-precision workloads, common in AI inference and certain graphics effects, while the MX330 essentially cannot.

Memory configuration is another major divider. The MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1650 doubles capacity to 4 GB, quadruples the bus to 128-bit, and achieves 128.1 GB/s. The memory clocks differ as well: the MX330 runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the GTX 1650 runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). For modern games that require more than 2 GB of VRAM at 1080p, the GTX 1650’s 4 GB buffer is not just an advantage but a necessity.

The compute units also scale accordingly. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate jumps from 25.50 GPixel/s to 53.28 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 38.26 GTexel/s to 93.24 GTexel/s. The GTX 1650’s base clock is slightly lower at 1485 MHz versus 1531 MHz, but its boost clock is higher at 1665 MHz versus 1594 MHz, and the massive increase in execution resources more than compensates.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both. The GTX 1650 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the MX330 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x4, which further constrains data transfer speeds for the MX330 in bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 29629, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 scores 7896. The GTX 1650 leads by 73.4 percent.

Q: Does the MX330 win any benchmark against the GTX 1650?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head tests, the GTX 1650 wins both the Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests. The MX330 has zero wins in direct comparisons.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 64-bit bus and 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The MX330 has a 10 W TDP and is an integrated graphics processor with no power connectors. The GTX 1650 has a 75 W TDP, is a dual-slot card, and has a suggested power supply of 250 W.

Q: Are both cards based on the same architecture?

A: No. The MX330 uses the Pascal architecture on a 14 nm process, while the GTX 1650 uses the Turing architecture on a 12 nm process.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the GTX 1650?

A: The GTX 1650 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD. The MX330 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior GPU in every benchmark where both are measured. In Geekbench OpenCL, it delivers 29629 points versus the MX330’s 7896, a 73.4 percent advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 33042 versus 9019, a 72.7 percent lead. These are not close results; they represent a generational leap in compute power.

The GTX 1650’s Turing architecture, with its 896 shading units versus 384, 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB, and 128-bit bus versus 64-bit, explains the performance gulf. The MX330’s Pascal architecture is older, its process node is larger (14 nm versus 12 nm), and its transistor count is less than half (1,800 million versus 4,700 million). Even the FP16 capability difference, where the GTX 1650 achieves 5.967 TFLOPS against the MX330’s 19.13 GFLOPS, shows a fundamental architectural gap.

The only scenario where the MX330 holds any appeal is in ultra-low-power systems. Its 10 W TDP, IGP form factor, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for thin laptops where battery life is paramount. The GTX 1650’s 75 W TDP and dual-slot design require a more substantial chassis and a 250 W suggested PSU.

For any user who intends to run 3D applications, play games, or perform GPU-accelerated compute, the GTX 1650 is the only rational choice from this data. The MX330 is strictly a basic display adapter for lightweight tasks, and its benchmark scores reflect that positioning. The GTX 1650, despite being end-of-life, remains a capable entry-level discrete GPU that outclasses the MX330 by a factor of nearly four in compute workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX330 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 |

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

| Chip | GP108B | TU117 |

| Architecture | Pascal | Turing |

| Generation | GeForce MX (3xx) | GeForce 16 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.3M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1531 MHz | 1485 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1594 MHz | 1665 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 128.1 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 896 |

| TMUs | 24 | 56 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 25.50 GPixel/s | 53.28 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 38.26 GTexel/s | 93.24 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,224.2 GFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64) | 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 10 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

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

| Dimensions | Not specified | 229 mm (9 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height, 35 mm (1.4 inches) width |

| Release Date | 2020-02-09 | 2019-04-22 |

| Predecessor | Not specified | GeForce 10 |

| Successor | Not specified | GeForce 20 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 149 USD |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

The specification table confirms the performance data. The GTX 1650 has more of everything that matters for speed: shading units, texture units, ROPs, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and FP32 compute. The MX330’s advantages are confined to a lower TDP, smaller die size, and higher base clock, none of which translate into benchmark wins. The GTX 1650’s Turing architecture and 12 nm process enable higher transistor counts and better compute efficiency, and the recorded benchmarks reflect that superiority in every test.