AMD Radeon RX 6500M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6500M is the decisive winner in this comparison. Across the two shared benchmark tests, it wins both, with an average benchmark score of 10362 compared to the NVIDIA GeForce MX330's 8458. The RX 6500M sits in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX330 sits in the 43rd percentile, a meaningful gap in overall standing. For any user choosing between these two, the RX 6500M is the clear pick for performance. The MX330 remains a viable option only if its drastically lower power draw (10 W vs. 50 W) is the absolute priority in an ultra-thin laptop, but the performance trade-off is enormous: the AMD part delivers roughly four times the score in both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The verdict is simple: choose the RX 6500M for any serious compute or gaming task, and choose the MX330 only when the system's thermal and power envelope is severely constrained.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from opposite ends of the architectural spectrum. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, using the Navi 24 chip manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process. It packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce MX330, in contrast, uses the older Pascal architecture with the GP108B chip, built on Samsung's 14 nm process. It houses 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, with a density of 24.3 million per mm². The RX 6500M is not only newer but also far more densely packed, reflecting a generational leap in manufacturing.

The compute resources differ by a wide margin. The RX 6500M features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units, along with 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing hardware at all. This is a 2.7x advantage in shading units, a 2.7x advantage in TMUs, and a 2x advantage in ROPs for the AMD part. The RX 6500M's pixel rate is 76.80 GPixel/s versus 25.50 GPixel/s for the MX330, and its texture rate is 153.6 GTexel/s versus 38.26 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the RX 6500M delivers 4.915 TFLOPS, more than four times the MX330's 1,224.2 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The RX 6500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 144.0 GB/s. The MX330 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 64-bit bus width, but its bandwidth is only 56.06 GB/s. That is a 2.6x advantage in memory bandwidth for the AMD part, which matters for texture-heavy and compute workloads. The RX 6500M's memory runs at an effective 18 Gbps, while the MX330's runs at an effective 7 Gbps.

The API support also reflects the generational gap. The RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the MX330 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6500M also supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio (9.830 TFLOPS), whereas the MX330's FP16 throughput is a negligible 19.13 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. The bus interface differs as well: the RX 6500M uses PCIe 4.0 x4, while the MX330 uses PCIe 3.0 x4.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500M wins in every measurable category where data exists. In compute-oriented workloads, the 4.915 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 144.0 GB/s memory bandwidth give it a massive advantage. The 16 ray tracing cores on the RX 6500M mean it can handle DirectX 12 Ultimate workloads, including ray-traced effects, while the MX330 has no such capability. For gaming, the RX 6500M's 76.80 GPixel/s pixel rate and 153.6 GTexel/s texture rate translate directly into higher resolution and detail settings headroom. The 4 GB VRAM also allows for larger texture packs and higher resolution buffers compared to the MX330's 2 GB.

The MX330's only advantage is power consumption. At 10 W TDP, it draws one-fifth of the RX 6500M's 50 W. This makes it suitable for ultra-portable laptops where battery life and cooling are paramount, and where the workload is limited to basic 2D acceleration, video playback, or light productivity tasks. The data shows that in pure compute performance, the MX330 is far behind: its average benchmark score is 8458, which places it near the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462, 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon 880M (8436, 0.3% delta). The RX 6500M's average score of 10362 places it near the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10400, -0.4% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10481, -1.1% delta). The MX330 is competing with hardware from earlier generations, while the RX 6500M is competing with much stronger parts.

For any workload that stresses the GPU, the RX 6500M is the correct choice. The MX330 is only sensible for systems where the 10 W power draw is non-negotiable and the user accepts a roughly 80% reduction in compute performance as measured by average benchmark score.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 38,586 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 388.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce MX330's score of 7,896.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 43,837 in Geekbench Vulkan, 386.1% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce MX330's 9,019.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either GPU support ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M has 16 dedicated ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has no ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M has a TDP of 50 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has a TDP of 10 W.

Q: How do their overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M has an average benchmark score of 10,362, placing it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has an average of 8,458, placing it in the 43rd percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two shared benchmark tests in the database are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and both show a dominant performance gap for the AMD Radeon RX 6500M.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6500M scores 38,586 against the MX330's 7,896. That is a delta of 388.7%, meaning the AMD part is nearly five times faster. This is a compute-heavy workload that stresses raw FP32 throughput, memory bandwidth, and shader execution. The RX 6500M's 4.915 TFLOPS FP32 capability and 144.0 GB/s bandwidth are the direct drivers of this result. The MX330's 1,224.2 GFLOPS and 56.06 GB/s bandwidth simply cannot compete.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6500M scores 43,837 against the MX330's 9,019, a delta of 386.1%. The Vulkan test exercises the GPU's ability to handle low-level graphics and compute commands efficiently. The RX 6500M's RDNA 2.0 architecture with its modern instruction set and higher clock speeds (boost 2400 MHz vs. 1594 MHz) contributes to this result. The 16 ray tracing cores on the RX 6500M also help in Vulkan workloads that can leverage them, while the MX330 has no equivalent hardware.

The RX 6500M wins both head-to-head tests, giving it a 2-0 record. The MX330 has zero wins. The margin is not close: both deltas exceed 385%, which is a categorical performance tier difference, not an incremental one. The MX330's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462, 0% delta) and the Intel Arc A380 (8558, -1.2% delta), showing that it sits among older or lower-tier parts. The RX 6500M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10400, -0.4% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10273, 0.9% delta), indicating it competes with much more capable hardware.

The conclusion from the benchmark data is straightforward: the RX 6500M is not just better, it is in a different performance class, delivering roughly 4x the compute result in both available tests.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD Radeon RX 6500M and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330:

• Architecture: RDNA 2.0 vs. Pascal
• Chip: Navi 24 vs. GP108B
• Process Node: 6 nm (TSMC) vs. 14 nm (Samsung)
• Transistors: 5,400 million vs. 1,800 million
• Die Size: 107 mm² vs. 74 mm²
• Transistor Density: 50.5M / mm² vs. 24.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: 2000 MHz vs. 1531 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2400 MHz vs. 1594 MHz
• Game Clock: 2191 MHz vs. not applicable
• Memory Clock: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) vs. 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 4 GB vs. 2 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR6 vs. GDDR5
• Memory Bandwidth: 144.0 GB/s vs. 56.06 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1024 vs. 384
• Texture Mapping Units: 64 vs. 24
• Render Output Units: 32 vs. 16
• Ray Tracing Cores: 16 vs. none
• Pixel Rate: 76.80 GPixel/s vs. 25.50 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 153.6 GTexel/s vs. 38.26 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 4.915 TFLOPS vs. 1,224.2 GFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 9.830 TFLOPS (2:1) vs. 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64)
• TDP: 50 W vs. 10 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x4 vs. PCIe 3.0 x4
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs. 12 (12_1)
• Release Date: 2022-01-03 vs. 2020-02-09

The RX 6500M is newer, larger, denser, faster in every clock and throughput metric, and has more memory with higher bandwidth. The MX330 is smaller, older, slower, and uses less power. The only categories where the MX330 is not at a disadvantage are the ones where no data exists for comparison, such as display outputs (both are portable device dependent) and slot width (both are IGP).