NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall benchmark performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has an average benchmark score of 8458, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M has an average score of 8040, placing it in the 42nd percentile. The MX330 leads by roughly 5% in average score.

Q: Which GPU wins in the available head-to-head benchmark, and by how much?

A: The only direct head-to-head test available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the MX330 scores 7896 against the GTX 880M’s 5622. That is a 40.4% advantage for the MX330.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU, and how close are the margins?

A: For the MX330, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8870M with a delta of 0%, followed by the AMD Radeon 880M at +0.3% for the MX330, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX at +0.4%. For the GTX 880M, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 at 0% delta, with the GeForce GTX 650 Ti at -0.2% (favoring the 880M) and the GTX 650 Ti Boost at -0.3%.

Q: What architectural differences exist between the two chips?

A: The MX330 uses the Pascal architecture on a 14 nm Samsung process with 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die (24.3M transistors per mm²). The GTX 880M uses the Kepler architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die (12.0M transistors per mm²).

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ?

A: The MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 880M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth — nearly three times the bandwidth and four times the capacity.

Q: What are the power and form-factor differences?

A: The MX330 has a 10 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors. The GTX 880M has a 122 W TDP and is an MXM module with no power connectors. The MX330 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the GTX 880M uses MXM-B (3.0).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design eras from NVIDIA. The MX330 is built on the Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process node. The GTX 880M uses the older Kepler architecture, produced by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This process gap is significant: the MX330 packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.3M per mm². The GTX 880M, by contrast, houses 3,540 million transistors on a much larger 294 mm² die, with a density of just 12.0M per mm². The Pascal chip is therefore more than twice as dense, which explains how it achieves higher performance per watt.

The compute configurations diverge sharply. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The GTX 880M has 1536 shading units — exactly four times as many — along with 128 TMUs and 32 ROPs. Despite the massive core-count advantage for the GTX 880M, clock speeds tell a different story: the MX330 runs at a 1531 MHz base and 1594 MHz boost, while the GTX 880M operates at 954 MHz base and 993 MHz boost. The MX330’s clocks are roughly 60% higher, which partially compensates for the core deficit.

Memory architectures are also generationally distinct. The MX330 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 880M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s. The bandwidth gap is nearly 3x in favor of the older chip. However, the MX330 supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the GTX 880M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Neither chip has ray tracing or tensor cores.

The power envelope is the starkest difference. The MX330 draws just 10 W, making it suitable for IGP integration with no power connectors. The GTX 880M consumes 122 W and comes as an MXM module. The process advantage alone accounts for much of this: the 14 nm node allows the MX330 to achieve its performance at one-twelfth the power draw. The MX330 also has a higher FP32 throughput per watt — 1,224.2 GFLOPS at 10 W versus 3.050 TFLOPS at 122 W — though the GTX 880M has the higher absolute FP32 figure.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload characteristics. For compute-oriented tasks measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the MX330 is the decisive winner, posting a 40.4% higher score than the GTX 880M. The MX330 also has a higher average benchmark score (8458 vs 8040) and a marginally better percentile rank (43 vs 42). If the primary use case is general-purpose GPU compute or modern API support, the MX330 is the better choice.

However, the GTX 880M has structural advantages that matter for specific scenarios. Its 8 GB memory capacity and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth — nearly triple the MX330’s — make it better suited for workloads that are memory-bound or require large framebuffers. The 256-bit bus and 32 ROPs also give it higher pixel fill rate (31.78 GPixel/s vs 25.50 GPixel/s) and substantially higher texture rate (127.1 GTexel/s vs 38.26 GTexel/s). For traditional rasterization-heavy tasks that can use those resources, the GTX 880M may pull ahead despite its lower compute score.

The production status matters: both are end-of-life, but the MX330 was released in 2020, six years after the GTX 880M’s 2014 launch. The GTX 880M’s predecessor is the GeForce 700M and its successor is the GeForce 900M. The MX330 has no listed predecessor or successor in the data. For modern software that expects newer API features, the MX330’s DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4 support are more future-proof than the GTX 880M’s DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The verdict is straightforward: the MX330 wins on compute performance, efficiency, and API modernity. The GTX 880M wins on memory capacity, bandwidth, and raw fill rates. Neither is a comprehensive winner — the choice depends entirely on whether the workload favors compute throughput or memory bandwidth.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX330 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M |

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

| Chip | GP108B | GK104 |

| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |

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

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.3M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1531 MHz | 954 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1594 MHz | 993 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 24 | 128 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 25.50 GPixel/s | 31.78 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 38.26 GTexel/s | 127.1 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,224.2 GFLOPS | 3.050 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64) | null |

| TDP | 10 W | 122 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | MXM-B (3.0) |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2020-02-09 | 2014-03-11 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the MX330 scores 7896, while the GTX 880M scores 5622. The delta is 40.4% in favor of the MX330. This is a substantial margin — for context, the MX330’s nearest rivals are within 1.2% of its average score, meaning the GTX 880M sits far outside that competitive cluster in this specific test.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar but less dramatic story. The MX330 averages 8458 across its benchmark suite, which includes Geekbench OpenCL (7896) and Geekbench Vulkan (9019). The GTX 880M averages 8040, based on Geekbench Metal (10458) and Geekbench OpenCL (5622). Interestingly, the GTX 880M’s Metal score is higher than either of the MX330’s individual scores, but its OpenCL result drags the average down significantly.

The percentile ranks confirm the closeness: the MX330 sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, the GTX 880M at the 42nd. A one-percentile difference is negligible in practical terms. The nearest rivals for each GPU reinforce this — the MX330’s closest competitor (AMD Radeon HD 8870M) scores 8462, just 4 points above its own average. The GTX 880M’s closest rival (NVIDIA Quadro P5000) scores 8039, just 1 point below. Both GPUs are firmly mid-pack performers.

The deltaPct values in the nearest rivals list are telling. For the MX330, the Intel Arc A380 is 1.2% ahead — the largest gap among its four listed rivals. For the GTX 880M, the NVIDIA GRID K2 is 0.5% ahead — the largest gap there. Neither GPU has a rival that is more than 1.2% away, indicating both sit in a tightly packed performance tier.

Where Each One Wins

The MX330 wins decisively in compute-oriented benchmarks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 7896 versus the GTX 880M’s 5622 represents a 40.4% advantage, and its average benchmark score is 418 points higher (8458 vs 8040). The MX330 also supports newer API versions — DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4 — which may improve performance in modern applications that leverage these features. Its 14 nm process node and 10 W TDP make it far more efficient, which is a clear win for thin-and-light systems where power draw is a constraint.

The GTX 880M wins in memory-intensive scenarios. Its 8 GB framebuffer is four times larger than the MX330’s 2 GB, and its 160.0 GB/s bandwidth is 2.85 times higher. For workloads that require large textures, high resolutions, or multiple render targets, this is a substantial advantage. The GTX 880M also has higher pixel rate (31.78 vs 25.50 GPixel/s) and texture rate (127.1 vs 38.26 GTexel/s), which benefits traditional 3D rendering pipelines. Its FP32 throughput of 3.050 TFLOPS is 2.5 times the MX330’s 1,224.2 GFLOPS, though the OpenCL benchmark results suggest the MX330 uses its compute resources more efficiently in practice.

The GTX 880M also has a notable win in Geekbench Metal, scoring 10458 — the highest individual benchmark score between the two GPUs. However, this test is only available for the GTX 880M, so a direct comparison is not possible. The MX330’s Vulkan score of 9019 is its strongest showing, indicating good performance in cross-platform graphics APIs.

For gaming at high resolutions with large texture packs, the GTX 880M’s memory advantage would likely prove decisive. For compute workloads, AI inference, or applications that rely on OpenCL, the MX330 is the stronger choice. The data does not support a single universal winner — it supports a workload-dependent decision.