NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they represent different design philosophies and eras. The data shows a split decision across the two benchmark suites, with each card claiming a decisive victory in one test. This head-to-head analysis relies strictly on the provided benchmark scores, architectural specifications, and performance context.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are starkly divided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the older GTX 950M delivers a score of 9,745, while the MX330 trails significantly at 7,896. This represents a 19% deficit for the MX330, making the GTX 950M the clear winner in this compute-oriented workload. This result is notable because the GTX 950M is the older part, released in 2015, yet it outperforms the newer MX330 by a substantial margin in raw OpenCL compute performance.

The tables turn completely in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the MX330 scores 9,019, while the GTX 950M manages only 6,525. The MX330 wins by a commanding 38.2% margin. This is a significant reversal, suggesting that the newer architecture handles the Vulkan API much more efficiently. The delta of 38.2% is the largest performance gap observed in either direction across the two tests.

When averaging both scores, the MX330 achieves an average benchmark score of 8,458, while the GTX 950M sits at 8,135. This translates to the MX330 holding a roughly 3.8% advantage in the aggregate, despite losing the OpenCL test. The MX330 also edges out the GTX 950M in overall GPU percentile ranking, sitting at the 43rd percentile versus the 42nd percentile for the GTX 950M.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides additional context. The MX330’s average score of 8,458 places it essentially level with the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462, 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon 880M (8,436, 0.3% delta). It is slightly behind the Intel Arc A380 (8,558, -1.2% delta). The GTX 950M’s average of 8,135 is similarly clustered, with the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8,129, 0.1% delta) and NVIDIA GeForce 945M (8,099, 0.4% delta) showing near-parity. Notably, the GTX 950M’s nearest rivals list includes the desktop-class NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8,167, -0.4% delta), which is surprising given the large performance gap typically expected between mobile and desktop parts, but the data shows these scores are comparable in this specific benchmark context.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, reflecting their different release periods. The MX330 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP108B chip, and is manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The GTX 950M, in contrast, uses the older Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process advantage is evident in the transistor density: the MX330 packs 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter, nearly double the GTX 950M’s 12.6 million per square millimeter.

The physical characteristics also differ significantly. The MX330’s GP108B chip contains 1,800 million transistors on a die size of 74 mm². The GTX 950M’s GM107 chip has a slightly higher transistor count at 1,870 million, but its die is much larger at 148 mm². This means the MX330 achieves its performance with a much smaller and more power-efficient chip.

Core configurations tell a mixed story. The GTX 950M has more raw processing resources, with 640 shading units and 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), compared to the MX330’s 384 shading units and 24 TMUs. Both have 16 raster output units (ROPs). Despite having fewer cores, the MX330 achieves a higher pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s versus the GTX 950M’s 17.98 GPixel/s, a direct result of its much higher clock speeds. The GTX 950M does hold the texture rate advantage at 44.96 GTexel/s versus 38.26 GTexel/s for the MX330.

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The MX330 runs at a base clock of 1531 MHz and boosts to 1594 MHz, while the GTX 950M operates at a much lower 993 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. This clock speed advantage helps explain the MX330’s Vulkan lead and its competitive pixel rate despite fewer cores.

Memory subsystems are radically different. The MX330 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 950M offers 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a wider 128-bit bus, but this results in only 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX330’s bandwidth is nearly double that of the GTX 950M, which is a critical factor for many workloads.

Power consumption is another major divide. The MX330 has a TDP of just 10 W, while the GTX 950M consumes 75 W. This is a 65 W difference, making the MX330 dramatically more power-efficient. The bus interface also differs, with the MX330 using PCIe 3.0 x4 and the GTX 950M using PCIe 3.0 x8.

API support shows a subtle difference. Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the MX330 supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1, while the GTX 950M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). The MX330 also lists FP16 performance at 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64), while the GTX 950M has no listed FP16 capability.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture with no universal winner. The MX330 wins the aggregate average score (8,458 vs 8,135) and the Vulkan benchmark by a wide 38.2% margin, while the GTX 950M wins the OpenCL benchmark by 19%. Users focused on compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, such as certain scientific or rendering tasks, would see better performance from the GTX 950M. Users running Vulkan-based games or applications should expect significantly better results on the MX330.

The MX330’s much lower TDP of 10 W versus 75 W makes it the clear choice for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals are paramount. The GTX 950M, with its higher power draw, would be found in bulkier gaming laptops of its era. The MX330 also offers a generational leap in memory bandwidth (56.06 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s), which can benefit texture-heavy workloads despite the smaller 2 GB capacity versus 4 GB.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has a higher average benchmark score of 8,458, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M’s 8,135.

Q: How much faster is the MX330 in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The MX330 scores 9,019 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 38.2% higher than the GTX 950M’s score of 6,525.

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

A: The MX330 has a TDP of 10 W, while the GTX 950M has a TDP of 75 W, a difference of 65 W.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 950M has 640 shading units, while the MX330 has 384 shading units.

Q: How does their memory bandwidth compare?

A: The MX330 offers 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth with a 64-bit GDDR5 interface, while the GTX 950M provides 28.80 GB/s via a 128-bit DDR3 interface.

Q: Which architecture does each GPU use?

A: The MX330 uses the Pascal architecture with a 14 nm process, while the GTX 950M uses the Maxwell architecture with a 28 nm process.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 950M wins in the OpenCL compute benchmark, scoring 9,745 versus 7,896 for the MX330. This makes it the better choice for OpenCL-accelerated applications. It also has more shading units (640 vs 384), more TMUs (40 vs 24), double the memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB), and a wider 128-bit memory bus. Its texture rate is also higher at 44.96 GTexel/s.

The MX330 wins decisively in the Vulkan benchmark (9,019 vs 6,525, a 38.2% advantage), which is often relevant for modern games. It also has a much higher average benchmark score (8,458 vs 8,135) and a better percentile ranking (43rd vs 42nd). The MX330 offers significantly higher clock speeds (1531 MHz base vs 993 MHz), a much lower TDP (10 W vs 75 W), a more advanced 14 nm process, and more than double the memory bandwidth (56.06 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s). Its pixel rate is also higher at 25.50 GPixel/s.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX330 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

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

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 148 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 1531 MHz | 993 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1594 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 640 |

| TMUs | 24 | 40 |

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

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

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

| FP16 Performance | 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64) | Not listed |

| TDP | 10 W | 75 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

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

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

| Predecessor | None listed | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | None listed | GeForce 10 Mobile |