NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M takes the OpenCL workload decisively, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 counters with a narrower but real win in Vulkan. In the recorded head-to-head results, the GTX 850M wins one test and the MX330 wins the other, so neither card dominates outright.

The GTX 850M posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 9821 against 7896 for the MX330, a 24.4% advantage. That is a substantial gap in compute-oriented workloads that lean on OpenCL. The MX330, however, answers in Vulkan with 9019 versus 8782, a 2.6% edge. That is a modest margin, but it shows the newer architecture handles the Vulkan API more efficiently despite having far fewer shading units.

Looking at the broader database context, the GTX 850M sits at the 46th percentile among all GPUs, while the MX330 lands at the 43rd percentile. The average benchmark score for the GTX 850M is 9302, and for the MX330 it is 8458. That is a 10% overall gap in favor of the older card, which is notable given the MX330 is six years newer in release timing.

For use-case selection, the data points to the GTX 850M for OpenCL-heavy tasks and the MX330 for Vulkan-based applications. If the workload is dominated by OpenCL, the GTX 850M is clearly the stronger choice. If the workload uses Vulkan, the MX330 has a slight but measurable advantage. For mixed workloads, the average scores favor the GTX 850M, but the margin is not overwhelming.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different eras and different process nodes. The GTX 850M uses the GM107 chip built on Maxwell architecture at TSMC's 28 nm process. The MX330 uses the GP108B chip built on Pascal architecture at Samsung's 14 nm process. That process shrink from 28 nm to 14 nm is a major factor in the MX330's drastically lower power draw.

Transistor counts are nearly identical, but the die sizes differ sharply. The GTX 850M packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The MX330 has 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, yielding 24.3M per mm². The MX330 crams nearly the same number of transistors into half the silicon area, which explains its efficiency profile.

The shader configurations are very different. The GTX 850M has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The MX330 has only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, but also 16 ROPs. Despite the GTX 850M having 67% more shading units, the MX330 still manages competitive scores in Vulkan, which points to architectural efficiency gains in Pascal.

Neither chip has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both are pure rasterization designs. The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 850M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The API feature level difference is minor in practice but technically favors the MX330.

Memory technology also differs. The GTX 850M uses DDR3 with a 128-bit bus, while the MX330 uses GDDR5 with a 64-bit bus. The MX330's narrower bus is compensated by faster memory clocks, resulting in higher bandwidth. The MX330 also has explicit base and boost clocks recorded at 1531 MHz and 1594 MHz, while the GTX 850M has no base or boost clock listed in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win goes to the GTX 850M in Geekbench OpenCL. It scores 9821 against the MX330's 7896, a 24.4% delta. That is a commanding lead. In this test, the GTX 850M's 640 shading units and wider 128-bit memory bus clearly pay off, as OpenCL workloads tend to scale with raw shader count and memory bandwidth.

The MX330 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with 9019 against 8782, a 2.6% delta. This is a smaller margin, but it flips the result. The MX330's Pascal architecture, despite having fewer shaders, handles Vulkan's lower-level API overhead better. The higher pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s versus 14.43 GPixel/s for the GTX 850M may also contribute to its Vulkan advantage.

Average benchmark scores reinforce the OpenCL result. The GTX 850M averages 9302 across its recorded tests, while the MX330 averages 8458. That puts the GTX 850M roughly 10% ahead overall. The MX330's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon HD 8870M at 8462, the AMD Radeon 880M at 8436, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX at 8427, all within 0.4% of the MX330. The GTX 850M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 at 9294 and the AMD Radeon R7 M380 at 9313, both within 0.1% of its score.

In terms of absolute performance tiers, the GTX 850M sits just above the AMD Radeon Vega 8, which scores 9221, a 0.9% deficit. The MX330 trails the Intel Arc A380, which scores 8558, by 1.2%. These reference points show both cards are entry-level mobile parts, but the GTX 850M sits in a slightly higher performance band.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several clear differences between the two cards.

Process Node: The GTX 850M is built on 28 nm at TSMC, while the MX330 uses 14 nm at Samsung.

Die Size: The GTX 850M measures 148 mm², the MX330 measures 74 mm².

Transistor Density: The GTX 850M has 12.6M transistors per mm², the MX330 has 24.3M per mm².

Memory Type: The GTX 850M uses DDR3, the MX330 uses GDDR5.

Memory Bus Width: The GTX 850M has a 128-bit bus, the MX330 has a 64-bit bus.

Memory Bandwidth: The GTX 850M delivers 32.03 GB/s, the MX330 delivers 56.06 GB/s.

Memory Clock: The GTX 850M runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), the MX330 runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

Shading Units: The GTX 850M has 640, the MX330 has 384.

Texture Mapping Units: The GTX 850M has 40, the MX330 has 24.

Pixel Rate: The GTX 850M achieves 14.43 GPixel/s, the MX330 achieves 25.50 GPixel/s.

Texture Rate: The GTX 850M achieves 36.08 GTexel/s, the MX330 achieves 38.26 GTexel/s.

FP32 Performance: The GTX 850M delivers 1,154.6 GFLOPS, the MX330 delivers 1,224.2 GFLOPS.

FP16 Performance: The GTX 850M has no recorded FP16 figure, the MX330 delivers 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64).

TDP: The GTX 850M draws 45 W, the MX330 draws 10 W.

Bus Interface: The GTX 850M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, the MX330 uses PCIe 3.0 x4.

DirectX Support: The GTX 850M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), the MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Release Date: The GTX 850M launched on 2014-03-11, the MX330 on 2020-02-09.

Generation: The GTX 850M belongs to GeForce 800M, the MX330 to GeForce MX (3xx).

Production Status: Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M has an average benchmark score of 9302, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 averages 8458. That puts the GTX 850M about 10% ahead.

Q: Why does the MX330 win in Vulkan despite having fewer shading units?

A: The MX330 has 384 shading units versus 640 on the GTX 850M, but its Pascal architecture and higher pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s versus 14.43 GPixel/s help it edge out the GTX 850M in Vulkan by 2.6% (9019 versus 8782).

Q: How much faster is the GTX 850M in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 850M scores 9821 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 7896 for the MX330, a 24.4% lead.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The GTX 850M has a TDP of 45 W, while the MX330 has a TDP of 10 W. The MX330 draws significantly less power.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The MX330 has higher memory bandwidth at 56.06 GB/s, despite using a 64-bit bus, because it uses GDDR5 memory at 7 Gbps effective. The GTX 850M uses DDR3 at 2 Gbps effective on a 128-bit bus, delivering 32.03 GB/s.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both the GTX 850M and the MX330 are listed as end-of-life products in the database.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split verdict. Pick the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M if the primary workload is OpenCL-based or needs higher raw shader throughput. Its 24.4% OpenCL advantage over the MX330 is substantial, and its average benchmark score of 9302 versus 8458 shows it is the faster card overall in the recorded tests. The GTX 850M also has a wider 128-bit memory bus and 640 shading units, which historically benefit compute-heavy tasks.

Pick the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 if the workload is Vulkan-based or if power efficiency is the priority. The MX330 wins the Vulkan test by 2.6%, and its 10 W TDP is a fraction of the GTX 850M's 45 W. That makes the MX330 far better suited for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals matter more than peak compute throughput. Its higher pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s also suggests better fill-rate-bound performance.

For users who need a balanced mobile GPU for mixed tasks, the GTX 850M holds the edge in average benchmark scores and sits at the 46th percentile versus the MX330's 43rd. But the MX330 is not far behind, and its efficiency advantage cannot be overstated. The database records one win each in the head-to-head tests, so the final choice depends entirely on which API and workload profile dominates the intended use case.