NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

The GeForce MX330 and GeForce GTX 675MX represent two very different NVIDIA mobile designs, separated by nearly eight years of architecture evolution. The data shows the GTX 675MX wins the only shared benchmark, but the MX330 counters with a far more modern feature set and dramatically lower power consumption. This comparison illustrates how raw compute and memory bandwidth compete against architectural efficiency and API support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole common benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The GTX 675MX scores 10,723, while the MX330 scores 7,896. That gives the older card a 26.4% advantage in this compute test. The delta is substantial — the GTX 675MX delivers roughly a quarter more OpenCL performance than the MX330.

This outcome aligns with the underlying hardware specifications. The GTX 675MX carries 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The MX330, in contrast, has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 675MX thus has 2.5 times the shading units, 3.3 times the TMUs, and double the ROPs. It also accesses memory over a 256-bit bus, compared to the MX330's 64-bit bus, yielding 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth versus 56.06 GB/s.

However, the average benchmark scores across all available tests tell a more nuanced story. The MX330 posts an average score of 8,458, while the GTX 675MX averages 8,427. The MX330 is ahead by 0.4% in this aggregate metric. The nearest-rival data confirms how close these two are: the AMD Radeon HD 8870M sits at 8,462 (0% delta from the MX330), and the AMD Radeon 880M is at 8,436 (0.3% behind the MX330). The GTX 675MX's own nearest-rival list shows it trailing the MX330 by 0.4%, trailing the Radeon HD 8870M by 0.4%, and leading the AMD Radeon R9 M375X by 1.2%.

The discrepancy between the single OpenCL test and the average scores suggests that the MX330 performs relatively better in other workloads, likely Vulkan. The MX330 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,019, which is notably higher than its OpenCL result. The GTX 675MX does not have a Vulkan score listed, but it does have a Geekbench Metal score of 6,131, which is lower than either of the MX330's results. This indicates that the MX330 may be more balanced across different compute APIs, even if it loses the head-to-head OpenCL comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras and foundries. The MX330 uses the GP108B chip, built on the Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. The GTX 675MX uses the GK104 chip, built on the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This process difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm means the MX330's transistors are physically much smaller.

The transistor counts reflect this. The MX330 packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 675MX has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The MX330 achieves double the transistor density, which is a direct consequence of the newer manufacturing process.

Clock behavior differs as well. The MX330 has defined base and boost clocks of 1531 MHz and 1594 MHz respectively. The GTX 675MX has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The MX330's memory runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), which is nearly double the effective rate of the GTX 675MX's memory. Yet the GTX 675MX still achieves more than double the bandwidth due to its 256-bit bus width.

The compute rates reveal the trade-offs. The MX330 achieves 1,224.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GTX 675MX achieves 1,255.7 GFLOPS. They are nearly identical in raw FP32 throughput. However, the pixel and texture rates tell a different story. The MX330 has a pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 38.26 GTexel/s. The GTX 675MX has a pixel rate of 13.08 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 52.32 GTexel/s. The MX330 is nearly twice as fast at pixel fill, but the GTX 675MX is about 37% faster at texture fill.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The MX330 has a TDP of just 10 W, while the GTX 675MX is rated at 100 W. That is a tenfold difference. The MX330 is also an integrated form factor (IGP) with no power connectors, while the GTX 675MX uses an MXM Module form factor. The bus interfaces differ accordingly: PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX330 versus MXM-B (3.0) for the GTX 675MX.

API support favors the newer card. The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 675MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The MX330's higher Vulkan version and more capable DirectX feature level are notable advantages for modern software compatibility.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a clear split. The GTX 675MX wins the only direct head-to-head comparison, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test by 26.4%. It also has superior texture rate, memory bandwidth, and raw shading unit count. For compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, the GTX 675MX is the stronger choice.

However, the MX330 wins on aggregate average score, posting 8,458 versus 8,427. It also has a much higher Vulkan score of 9,019, suggesting better performance in Vulkan-based applications. The MX330 achieves nearly identical FP32 throughput (1,224.2 vs 1,255.7 GFLOPS) despite having far fewer cores, and it doubles the pixel fill rate.

The power envelope is the most dramatic differentiator. The MX330 draws 10 W compared to the GTX 675MX's 100 W. A mobile device with the MX330 can sustain performance without the thermal and battery demands of the GTX 675MX. The MX330 is an integrated GPU, while the GTX 675MX requires a discrete MXM module.

For users prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, the GTX 675MX is the data-backed choice. For users who need balanced performance across APIs, lower power draw, and modern feature support, the MX330 is the better fit. The GTX 675MX's lack of a Vulkan score in the data, combined with its lower Metal score of 6,131 versus the MX330's Vulkan score of 9,019, suggests the MX330 is more adaptable to contemporary graphics APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has an average score of 8,458, which is 0.4% higher than the GTX 675MX's 8,427.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 675MX in the head-to-head OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 675MX scores 10,723 versus the MX330's 7,896, giving it a 26.4% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL.

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

A: The MX330 has a TDP of 10 W, while the GTX 675MX is rated at 100 W — a tenfold difference in power consumption.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 675MX has 960 shading units, compared to the MX330's 384, giving the older card a 2.5x advantage in core count.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The GTX 675MX has 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth over a 256-bit bus, while the MX330 has 56.06 GB/s over a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher Vulkan version?

A: The MX330 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 675MX supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 675MX wins decisively in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 26.4% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test is backed by 2.5x more shading units, 3.3x more TMUs, and double the ROPs. The 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than double the MX330's 56.06 GB/s, which helps in bandwidth-intensive tasks. Its texture rate of 52.32 GTexel/s exceeds the MX330's 38.26 GTexel/s by 37%. For applications that rely heavily on raw parallel compute and texture throughput, the GTX 675MX is the stronger performer.

The MX330 wins on aggregate benchmark average, Vulkan performance, pixel fill, and power efficiency. Its average score of 8,458 edges out the GTX 675MX's 8,427. The Vulkan score of 9,019 shows strong performance in modern graphics APIs. The pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s is nearly double the GTX 675MX's 13.08 GPixel/s. The 10 W TDP versus 100 W makes the MX330 suitable for thin-and-light devices where the GTX 675MX would be impractical. The MX330 also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which the GTX 675MX cannot match. For users prioritizing battery life, modern API compatibility, and pixel-heavy rendering, the MX330 is the data-supported choice.