NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear, consistent edge for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost across both available tests, though the magnitude of that advantage varies by workload. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 650 Ti Boost scores 9302 against the MX330’s 7896, a delta of -15.1% from the MX330’s perspective. That is a substantial gap, placing the older desktop card roughly 15% ahead in a compute-oriented API that stresses raw throughput. The Vulkan results tighten the margin somewhat: the GTX 650 Ti Boost posts 10041 versus 9019, a -10.2% difference. While still a decisive win for the GTX 650 Ti Boost, the narrower spread suggests the MX330’s architecture handles Vulkan’s lower-overhead path more efficiently relative to its own OpenCL performance.

Looking at the aggregate scores, the MX330 actually carries a higher average benchmark score of 8458 compared to the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 8067. This inversion is notable: despite losing both head-to-head tests, the MX330’s average is lifted by its Vulkan result, which is closer to parity than the OpenCL gap would suggest. The GTX 650 Ti Boost’s average is dragged down by its Geekbench Metal score of 4858, a test the MX330 does not participate in, which skews the comparison. For the two shared benchmarks, the GTX 650 Ti Boost wins both, but the MX330’s percentile ranking (43rd versus 42nd) is marginally better, indicating that its overall profile across all tested GPUs is slightly stronger than the older card’s despite losing this direct pairing.

The deltaPct values against nearest rivals further contextualize each card’s standing. The MX330’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 8870M, averages 8462 — a 0% delta — meaning the MX330 is essentially tied with that mobile part. The GTX 650 Ti Boost’s closest competitor, the NVIDIA GRID K2, averages 8080, a -0.2% delta, placing the GTX 650 Ti Boost fractionally ahead of that card. Neither GPU dominates its immediate competitive neighborhood; both sit in a tightly clustered mid-range band where single-digit percentage swings separate neighbors.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost is the stronger performer in every shared benchmark. Its OpenCL lead of 15.1% is meaningful for any workload that scales with shading units, texture units, and memory bandwidth — all areas where its specification sheet shows clear advantages. The Vulkan win of 10.2% is smaller but still unambiguous. If the choice is between these two for raw benchmark scores, the GTX 650 Ti Boost is the pick without qualification.

However, the MX330 is not without a case. Its average benchmark score of 8458 exceeds the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 8067, and its percentile rank (43) edges out the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s (42). For users who weight aggregate performance across multiple APIs — including Metal, where the GTX 650 Ti Boost scores a weak 4858 — the MX330’s profile looks more balanced. The MX330 also achieves this with a 10 W TDP against the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 134 W, a 13.4x difference that has real implications for system design. The GTX 650 Ti Boost demands a 300 W suggested PSU and a 1x 6-pin connector; the MX330 requires none. For a compact or low-power system, the MX330 is the only sensible option despite losing every head-to-head test.

The verdict splits cleanly: performance-oriented buyers choose the GTX 650 Ti Boost; efficiency-oriented buyers choose the MX330. There is no middle ground in the data — the GTX 650 Ti Boost wins on speed, the MX330 wins on power and integration.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 650 Ti Boost wins in every scenario where raw compute throughput is the bottleneck. Its OpenCL score of 9302 versus 7896 indicates a 15.1% advantage in general-purpose compute tasks like rendering, physics simulation, or data-parallel workloads that leverage OpenCL. Its Vulkan score of 10041 versus 9019 shows a 10.2% edge in modern graphics APIs, which translate directly to gaming performance under Vulkan titles. The card’s 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 144.2 GB/s memory bandwidth — all substantially higher than the MX330’s 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 56.06 GB/s — explain this pattern. The GTX 650 Ti Boost was designed for desktop gaming in 2013, and its specifications reflect that intent.

The MX330 wins in every scenario where power consumption, physical footprint, or system integration matters. Its 10 W TDP against the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 134 W makes it suitable for laptops and small-form-factor systems where the older card’s dual-slot design and 241 mm length would never fit. The MX330’s IGP slot width and portable-device-dependent display outputs mean it integrates directly into mobile platforms without external power connectors. Its Pascal architecture, built on Samsung’s 14 nm process, delivers better transistor density (24.3M / mm² versus 11.5M / mm²) and a higher base clock (1531 MHz versus 980 MHz), which partially compensates for its fewer execution units. For users who need a GPU that simply works in a thin-and-light chassis, the MX330 is the only viable choice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330, with an average benchmark score of 8458 versus the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 8067.

Q: How large is the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s lead in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 650 Ti Boost scores 9302 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the MX330’s 7896, a 15.1% advantage.

Q: Does the MX330 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The GTX 650 Ti Boost wins both shared tests — Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan — with deltas of -15.1% and -10.2% respectively.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The MX330 has a TDP of 10 W, while the GTX 650 Ti Boost has a TDP of 134 W — a 124 W difference.

Q: Which GPU has the higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The MX330 ranks in the 43rd percentile, one point higher than the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 42nd percentile.

Q: How does the GTX 650 Ti Boost perform in Metal?

A: It scores 4858 in Geekbench Metal, a result that pulls its average benchmark score below the MX330’s despite winning the shared OpenCL and Vulkan tests.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The MX330 uses the GP108B chip built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. The GTX 650 Ti Boost uses the GK106 chip on the older Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This process gap explains the transistor density disparity: the MX330 packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, yielding 24.3M transistors per mm², while the GTX 650 Ti Boost crams 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, yielding just 11.5M per mm². The MX330’s newer node allows higher clocks — 1531 MHz base and 1594 MHz boost versus 980 MHz base and 1032 MHz boost — despite having fewer transistors overall.

The execution resources differ sharply. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 650 Ti Boost doubles the shading units to 768, more than doubles the TMUs to 64, and increases ROPs to 24. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores. The GTX 650 Ti Boost compensates for its lower clocks with more parallel units, achieving 1.585 TFLOPS FP32 against the MX330’s 1,224.2 GFLOPS — albeit with a different unit convention in the data. The MX330 lists FP16 at 19.13 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the GTX 650 Ti Boost lists no FP16 capability at all. Pixel rate favors the MX330 (25.50 GPixel/s versus 16.51 GPixel/s) due to its higher clock, but texture rate heavily favors the GTX 650 Ti Boost (66.05 GTexel/s versus 38.26 GTexel/s) thanks to its 64 TMUs.

API support shows another generational split. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the MX330 supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 650 Ti Boost supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The MX330’s newer API versions reflect its 2020 release date; the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 2013 release limits its Vulkan implementation. Neither card supports hardware ray tracing or tensor operations.

Specification Differences

The table below isolates only the fields where the two cards differ, omitting shared attributes like 2 GB GDDR5 memory, end-of-life production status, and null RT/tensor core counts.

| Specification | MX330 | GTX 650 Ti Boost |

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

| Chip | GP108B | GK106 |

| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |

| Generation | GeForce MX (3xx) | GeForce 600 |

| Process Node | 14 nm (Samsung) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.3M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1531 MHz | 980 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1594 MHz | 1032 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1752 MHz / 7 Gbps effective | 1502 MHz / 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 144.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 768 |

| TMUs | 24 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 25.50 GPixel/s | 16.51 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 38.26 GTexel/s | 66.05 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,224.2 GFLOPS | 1.585 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64) | None |

| TDP | 10 W | 134 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 300 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| DirectX Version | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Length | Not specified | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2020-02-09 | 2013-03-25 |

| Predecessor | None | GeForce 500 |

| Successor | None | GeForce 700 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 169 USD |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 7896 | 9302 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 9019 | 10041 |

| Geekbench Metal | Not tested | 4858 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 8458 | 8067 |

| Percentile | 43 | 42 |