NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but the benchmark data shows they occupy distinctly different performance tiers. In the single recorded benchmark comparison, the GTX 950A decisively outperforms the MX330, yet the MX330 counters with a more modern feature set and significantly lower power requirements. This analysis breaks down where each GPU wins based on the recorded database measurements.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is clear from the recorded data. The GTX 950A wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 10,273 against the MX330’s 7,896. That is a 30.1% advantage, making the GTX 950A the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads that rely on raw OpenCL performance, such as general-purpose GPU tasks or applications that leverage OpenCL acceleration.

The MX330, despite losing the benchmark comparison, wins in the efficiency and portability domain. Its thermal design power is 10 W, versus 75 W for the GTX 950A. The data shows the MX330 is built as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface, while the GTX 950A uses an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface. For thin-and-light laptops where battery life and cooling are priorities, the MX330’s power envelope is a decisive advantage, even if its raw compute score is lower.

The MX330 also wins on API feature support. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 950A is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). For modern games or applications that use DirectX 12 feature level 12_1, the MX330 has a capability the GTX 950A lacks. The MX330 also has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score of 9,019, which is absent for the GTX 950A, indicating the MX330 has been validated for Vulkan workloads in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The GTX 950A uses the GM107 chip based on Maxwell architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The MX330 uses the GP108B chip based on Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The newer process node gives the MX330 a substantial transistor density advantage: 24.3M transistors per mm² versus 12.6M for the GTX 950A. The MX330’s die size is 74 mm² with 1,800 million transistors, while the GTX 950A’s die is 148 mm² with 1,870 million transistors.

The memory subsystems differ significantly. The GTX 950A has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 32.03 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX330 also has 2 GB, but uses GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, which delivers 56.06 GB/s. Despite having half the bus width, the MX330’s faster GDDR5 memory results in 75% more bandwidth. The MX330 also runs at much higher clocks: a base of 1531 MHz and a boost of 1594 MHz, compared to the GTX 950A’s 993 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost.

The compute configurations are inverted relative to their bandwidth. The GTX 950A has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 950A’s raw throughput is higher: 1,438.7 GFLOPS FP32 versus 1,224.2 GFLOPS for the MX330. However, the MX330 achieves a higher pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s for the GTX 950A, a consequence of its higher clock speed. The texture rates are closer: 44.96 GTexel/s for the GTX 950A and 38.26 GTexel/s for the MX330.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head benchmark: Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 950A scores 10,273, while the MX330 scores 7,896. The delta is 30.1% in favor of the GTX 950A. This is a substantial margin, placing the GTX 950A in a different performance class for OpenCL compute.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this gap. The GTX 950A’s average benchmark score is 10,273, placing it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M at 10,362 (0.9% faster) and the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10,481 (2% faster). The MX330’s average score is 8,458, at the 43rd percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8870M at 8,462 (0% difference) and the Intel Arc A380 at 8,558 (1.2% faster). The gap between the two GPUs’ average scores is roughly 1,815 points, which is consistent with the 30.1% head-to-head delta.

The MX330 does have a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,019. This is higher than its OpenCL score of 7,896, suggesting the MX330 performs relatively better under Vulkan. However, without a corresponding Vulkan score for the GTX 950A, no direct comparison is possible from the recorded data. The GTX 950A’s single benchmark score is its OpenCL result, and that is the only basis for cross-GPU comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 950A. It delivers 1,438.7 GFLOPS FP32 versus 1,224.2 GFLOPS for the MX330, and it wins the Geekbench OpenCL test by 30.1% with a score of 10,273 versus 7,896.

Q: Does the MX330 have any performance advantage over the GTX 950A?

A: Yes, in pixel throughput. The MX330 achieves 25.50 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s for the GTX 950A, despite having fewer shading units and TMUs. Its higher clock speed drives this advantage.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The GTX 950A uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus for 32.03 GB/s bandwidth. The MX330 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus for 56.06 GB/s bandwidth, which is 75% higher despite the narrower bus.

Q: What architectural generation is each GPU?

A: The GTX 950A is Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The MX330 is Pascal architecture on a 14 nm process at Samsung, with a transistor density of 24.3M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm² for the GTX 950A.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern DirectX features?

A: The MX330. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 950A is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MX330 has a thermal design power of 10 W, while the GTX 950A is rated at 75 W. The MX330’s IGP form factor with a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface reflects its low-power design, whereas the GTX 950A uses an MXM module.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision. For compute performance, the GTX 950A is the unambiguous winner. Its 30.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with higher FP32 throughput (1,438.7 versus 1,224.2 GFLOPS) and more shading units (640 versus 384), makes it the stronger choice for OpenCL-based workloads. Its 48th percentile ranking versus the MX330’s 43rd percentile confirms its higher overall standing in the database.

For modern system integration and energy efficiency, the MX330 is the better pick. Its 10 W TDP is a fraction of the GTX 950A’s 75 W, making it suitable for compact, battery-powered designs. The MX330 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and has a validated Vulkan score of 9,019, offering a more current API feature set. Its GDDR5 memory delivers 56.06 GB/s, which is 75% more bandwidth than the GTX 950A’s DDR3, and its pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s exceeds the GTX 950A’s 17.98 GPixel/s.

Users prioritizing raw compute in an MXM-based laptop should choose the GTX 950A. Users prioritizing low power consumption, modern API support, and a slim IGP form factor should choose the MX330. The GTX 950A wins on performance; the MX330 wins on efficiency and feature currency.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A | NVIDIA GeForce MX330 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 1,800 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 74 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 24.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 993 MHz | 1531 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 1594 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.03 GB/s | 56.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 384 |

| TMUs | 40 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 17.98 GPixel/s | 25.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.96 GTexel/s | 38.26 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,438.7 GFLOPS | 1,224.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 10 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

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

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

| Release Date | 2015-03-12 | 2020-02-09 |