NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits the two GPUs evenly, with each securing one victory in the head-to-head tests. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 takes the Geekbench OpenCL result, scoring 9,315 against the MX330's 7,896, a margin of 15.2%. This suggests the older Maxwell card retains an advantage in compute workloads that scale well with raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth. The GTX 750's 512 shading units and 128-bit memory interface likely contribute to this outcome, though the data alone points to OpenCL as its stronger domain.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 counters in the Geekbench Vulkan test, posting 9,019 versus the GTX 750's 8,078, a lead of 11.6%. Vulkan is a lower-level API that rewards architectural efficiency and driver optimization, and the newer Pascal-based chip appears better suited to it. The MX330 also boasts a higher boost clock at 1,594 MHz compared to the GTX 750's 1,085 MHz, which helps in latency-sensitive rendering tasks. For users targeting modern Vulkan titles or applications, the MX330's win here is meaningful.

Looking at overall averages, the MX330 records an average benchmark score of 8,458, while the GTX 750 sits at 7,222. That places the MX330 at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, versus the 40th percentile for the GTX 750. The delta in average scores is substantial, roughly 17% in favor of the MX330, driven largely by its strong Vulkan showing. However, the GTX 750's OpenCL dominance cannot be ignored, as it outperforms the MX330 in that specific test by a wide margin.

The use-case split is clear: the GTX 750 is the pick for OpenCL-centric compute tasks, while the MX330 is better for Vulkan-based gaming and modern API workloads. Neither card is a universal winner, and the choice depends entirely on the software environment. The MX330's higher percentile ranking suggests it is the more balanced performer overall, but the GTX 750 remains competitive in its niche.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The MX330 uses the GP108B chip built on Pascal architecture, fabricated at Samsung on a 14 nm process. It packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. The GTX 750, by contrast, employs the GM107 chip on Maxwell architecture, produced at TSMC on a 28 nm node. It houses 1,870 million transistors across a much larger 148 mm² die, with a transistor density of just 12.6 million per square millimeter.

These process differences explain the MX330's efficiency advantage. The 14 nm node allows for nearly double the transistor density, which is reflected in the power envelope: the MX330 draws a mere 10 W, while the GTX 750 consumes 55 W. The MX330 is classified as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors, whereas the GTX 750 is a single-slot card that also requires no power connectors but demands a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Memory configurations also diverge significantly. The MX330 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 750 offers only 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 but on a 128-bit bus, producing 80.19 GB/s. The GTX 750's wider memory interface gives it a bandwidth advantage of roughly 43%, which likely contributes to its OpenCL win. However, the MX330's larger capacity allows it to handle larger textures and datasets, a trade-off between speed and capacity.

Compute resources differ as well. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The GTX 750 counters with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 750's higher shader and TMU counts are offset by lower clock speeds: its base is 1,020 MHz and boost is 1,085 MHz, versus the MX330's 1,531 MHz base and 1,594 MHz boost. Pixel rate favors the MX330 at 25.50 GPixel/s versus 17.36 GPixel/s, while texture rate is close: 38.26 GTexel/s for the MX330 and 34.72 GTexel/s for the GTX 750.

The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 750 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The MX330's newer architecture also enables FP16 compute at 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a feature the GTX 750 lacks entirely. FP32 performance is similar, with the MX330 at 1,224.2 GFLOPS and the GTX 750 at 1,111.0 GFLOPS. These architectural differences explain the benchmark split, as the MX330's efficiency and modern API support give it an edge in Vulkan, while the GTX 750's wider memory bus and higher shader count bolster OpenCL.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is a decisive win for the GTX 750. It scores 9,315 against the MX330's 7,896, a delta of 15.2%. This result aligns with the GTX 750's hardware strengths: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX330's 384 shading units and 56.06 GB/s cannot keep pace in this compute-heavy workload. For developers or users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the GTX 750 is the clear choice based on this data.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script. The MX330 scores 9,019, beating the GTX 750's 8,078 by 11.6%. Vulkan's low-overhead design rewards the MX330's higher boost clock (1,594 MHz) and Pascal's improved draw-call handling. The MX330's FP32 throughput of 1,224.2 GFLOPS also edges out the GTX 750's 1,111.0 GFLOPS, giving it a slight compute advantage in real-time rendering scenarios. This result suggests that for modern games and Vulkan-based applications, the MX330 is the superior option.

Looking at the broader database context, the MX330's average benchmark score of 8,458 places it near rivals such as the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462), AMD Radeon 880M (8,436), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427), with a small 0.3 to 0.4% advantage over the latter two. It trails the Intel Arc A380 (8,558) by 1.2%. The GTX 750's average of 7,222 sits close to the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE (7,171), with a 0.3 to 0.7% edge over those rivals. The GTX 750 also outperforms the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7,170) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (7,157) by 0.7 to 0.9% in average score, though those deltas are minor.

The head-to-head split is thus a tale of two APIs. OpenCL favors the older, wider-bus Maxwell design, while Vulkan favors the newer, higher-clocked Pascal chip. The MX330's overall average is higher, but the GTX 750's OpenCL win is too large to dismiss. In mixed workloads, the MX330 likely offers the better balance, but for pure OpenCL compute, the GTX 750 remains formidable.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The MX330 uses a 14 nm process from Samsung, while the GTX 750 uses 28 nm from TSMC. Transistor counts are similar (1,800 million vs 1,870 million), but die size differs dramatically: 74 mm² for the MX330 versus 148 mm² for the GTX 750, giving the MX330 a density of 24.3M transistors per mm² versus 12.6M for the GTX 750.

Clock speeds favor the MX330. Its base clock is 1,531 MHz and boost is 1,594 MHz, compared to the GTX 750's 1,020 MHz base and 1,085 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the MX330 runs at 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the GTX 750 runs at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 2 GB for the MX330 versus 1024 MB for the GTX 750, and bus width is 64-bit versus 128-bit. Bandwidth goes to the GTX 750 at 80.19 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s.

Shading units and TMUs favor the GTX 750 (512 and 32 versus 384 and 24), while ROPs are equal at 16. Pixel rate favors the MX330 (25.50 GPixel/s versus 17.36 GPixel/s), as does texture rate (38.26 GTexel/s versus 34.72 GTexel/s). FP32 compute is close, with the MX330 at 1,224.2 GFLOPS and the GTX 750 at 1,111.0 GFLOPS, but FP16 support exists only on the MX330 at 19.13 GFLOPS.

Power draw is a major differentiator: 10 W for the MX330 versus 55 W for the GTX 750. The MX330 is an IGP with no slot width, while the GTX 750 is single-slot and 145 mm (5.7 inches) long. The GTX 750 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, whereas the MX330 has none. Bus interface differs as well: PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX330 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 750. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for the MX330, while the GTX 750 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a.

Release dates are six years apart: the MX330 launched on February 9, 2020, and the GTX 750 on February 17, 2014. The GTX 750 has a launch MSRP of 119 USD, while the MX330 has no listed MSRP. The GTX 750's predecessors and successors are noted as GeForce 600 and GeForce 900, respectively, while the MX330 has none listed. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9,315, beating the MX330's 7,896 by 15.2%.

Q: Which GPU performs better in Vulkan applications?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with 9,019, beating the GTX 750's 8,078 by 11.6%.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The MX330 has an average benchmark score of 8,458, while the GTX 750 averages 7,222. The MX330 sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, versus the 40th percentile for the GTX 750.

Q: What are the key memory differences?

A: The MX330 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 750 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, giving it higher bandwidth but less capacity.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The MX330 draws only 10 W, while the GTX 750 consumes 55 W. The MX330 is built on a 14 nm Samsung process, whereas the GTX 750 uses a 28 nm TSMC process.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. However, the MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 750 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). The MX330 also supports FP16 compute, which the GTX 750 lacks.