GPU Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 in every recorded head-to-head test, with the MX330 failing to secure a single win across the two shared benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 980 scores 34,676 against the MX330's 7,896, a delta of -77.2% for the MX330, meaning the GTX 980 delivers roughly 4.4 times the compute throughput in this workload. The gap narrows somewhat in Geekbench Vulkan, but remains substantial: the GTX 980 scores 22,543 versus 9,019 for the MX330, a 60% deficit for the smaller chip. This pattern is consistent with the broader benchmark averages, where the MX330 posts an average score of 8,458 across its two tests, while the GTX 980 averages 8,167 across a far larger suite of eleven benchmarks.

The deltaPct values in the head-to-head data quantify the scale of the separation. A -77.2% delta in OpenCL is not a marginal difference; it places the two GPUs in entirely different performance tiers. The GTX 980's 4.98 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput and 224.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth dwarf the MX330's 1,224.2 GFLOPS and 56.06 GB/s, explaining why the raw scores diverge so sharply. Even in Vulkan, where the MX330's relative showing improves slightly, the GTX 980 still leads by 60%, a margin that would be visible in any frame-rate comparison. The MX330's 43rd percentile among all GPUs matches the GTX 980's 43rd percentile, but this parity in percentile ranking reflects the fact that both are mid-pack performers in the overall database, it does not indicate parity between the two cards themselves. The MX330's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (avg 8,462, delta 0%), the AMD Radeon 880M (avg 8,436, delta 0.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (avg 8,427, delta 0.4%), all of which sit within a whisker of the MX330's average. The GTX 980's nearest rivals are similarly close: the GTX 950M (avg 8,135, delta 0.4%), the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (avg 8,129, delta 0.5%), and the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (avg 8,099, delta 0.8%). Both cards inhabit dense performance neighborhoods, but the neighborhoods themselves are far apart.

# The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the GTX 980 is the superior performer in every measurable way. If the choice is between these two GPUs for any workload that stresses compute, memory bandwidth, or rendering throughput, the GTX 980 wins outright. The MX330's sole advantage lies in its efficiency and form factor, it draws just 10 W compared to the GTX 980's 165 W, and it is an integrated graphics solution (IGP) with no power connectors, whereas the GTX 980 requires a dual-slot cooler and two 6-pin power connectors. For a user building a compact, low-power system where the GPU must run off motherboard power alone, the MX330 is the only viable option between the two. But for any desktop build with a power supply rated at 450 W or higher, the GTX 980's suggested PSU, the performance gulf makes the GTX 980 the rational pick. The GTX 980 also offers twice the memory (4 GB versus 2 GB) and a 256-bit bus versus 64-bit, which translates to 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth versus 56.06 GB/s. The MX330's 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs are dwarfed by the GTX 980's 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The GTX 980's pixel rate of 77.82 GPixel/s and texture rate of 155.6 GTexel/s are roughly three and four times the MX330's 25.50 GPixel/s and 38.26 GTexel/s, respectively. In short, the GTX 980 is a discrete desktop-class GPU from 2014 designed for gaming; the MX330 is a 2020 ultra-low-power mobile part aimed at basic multimedia. The benchmark scores reflect this chasm, and no workload in the data set reverses it.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures, fabricated on different process nodes by different foundries. The MX330 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP108B chip, manufactured on Samsung's 14 nm process. The GTX 980 uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This process gap is significant: the 14 nm node allows the MX330 to pack 1,800 million transistors onto a die of just 74 mm², yielding a transistor density of 24.3 million transistors per mm². The GTX 980, by contrast, crams 5,200 million transistors onto a 398 mm² die, for a density of 13.1 million transistors per mm². The MX330's density advantage is roughly 85% higher, a direct consequence of the newer, smaller process node, but the GTX 980's raw transistor count is nearly three times larger, which is why it delivers so much more performance despite the older node. The architectural generations also differ: the MX330 belongs to the GeForce MX (3xx) generation, while the GTX 980 is part of the GeForce 900 family. The GTX 980's predecessor is the GeForce 700 series, and its successor is the GeForce 10 series, placing it in a well-defined product lineage. The MX330 has no listed predecessor or successor. Both GPUs share the same API support: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so any workload relying on those features would be unsupported on both. The MX330's FP16 throughput is listed at 19.13 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio to FP32, indicating a heavily crippled half-precision path; the GTX 980's FP16 figures are not listed, suggesting it may not support FP16 at all in a meaningful way.

# Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal stark contrasts across nearly every field. Memory configuration is a primary differentiator: the MX330 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GTX 980 provides 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, for 224.4 GB/s. That is exactly four times the memory capacity and four times the bus width, resulting in a bandwidth multiplication of precisely 4.0. The base and boost clocks tell an interesting story: the MX330 runs at 1531 MHz base and 1594 MHz boost, while the GTX 980 operates at 1127 MHz base and 1216 MHz boost. The MX330's clocks are roughly 36% higher at base and 31% higher at boost, reflecting the efficiency of the 14 nm process, but the GTX 980's far larger execution resources overwhelm this clock advantage. The MX330's 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs compare to the GTX 980's 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, the GTX 980 has 5.3 times more shading units, 5.3 times more TMUs, and 4 times more ROPs. The FP32 compute figures are 1,224.2 GFLOPS for the MX330 versus 4.981 TFLOPS for the GTX 980, a ratio of 4.07. The MX330's memory clock is 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), virtually identical to the GTX 980's 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), so the bandwidth difference is purely a function of bus width. The TDP is a dramatic split: 10 W for the MX330 versus 165 W for the GTX 980. The MX330 is an integrated graphics processor with no power connectors and no slot width, while the GTX 980 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, requiring two 6-pin power connectors and a suggested 450 W power supply. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX330, PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 980. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" on the MX330, while the GTX 980 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. The release dates are 2020-02-09 for the MX330 and 2014-09-18 for the GTX 980. The GTX 980's launch MSRP was 549 USD. Both are end-of-life products.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 wins decisively with a score of 34,676 against the MX330's 7,896, a delta of -77.2% for the MX330.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 980 in Vulkan?

A: The GTX 980 scores 22,543 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 9,019 for the MX330, a 60% lead for the GTX 980.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 980 offers 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth on a 256-bit bus, while the MX330 provides 56.06 GB/s on a 64-bit bus, exactly four times as much.

Q: How do the TDPs compare?

A: The MX330 draws just 10 W, while the GTX 980 consumes 165 W, requiring a dual-slot cooler and two 6-pin power connectors.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Q: What is the FP32 compute throughput of each?

A: The MX330 delivers 1,224.2 GFLOPS, while the GTX 980 provides 4.981 TFLOPS, a 4.07x advantage for the GTX 980.