GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 represent two very different eras of GPU design, separated by a decade of architectural evolution. The MX330 is a modern, ultra-low-power Pascal-based chip designed for thin-and-light laptops, while the GTX 460 is a classic Fermi-era desktop card from 2010. Benchmark data shows they are remarkably close in raw compute performance, yet their underlying designs and target use cases could not be more different.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has a higher average benchmark score of 8458, compared to 7925 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460. This places the MX330 in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 460 sits in the 41st percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the only head-to-head benchmark available?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 460 edges out the MX330 by a razor-thin margin. The GTX 460 scores 7925, while the MX330 scores 7896, a delta of just -0.4% for the MX330.

Q: What is the biggest architectural difference between them?

A: The MX330 uses a 14 nm process from Samsung with a 74 mm² die, while the GTX 460 uses a 40 nm process from TSMC with a 332 mm² die. The MX330's modern node allows for a transistor density of 24.3M per mm², versus just 5.9M per mm² for the GTX 460.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 460 has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 86.40 GB/s, thanks to its 192-bit memory bus. The MX330 manages only 56.06 GB/s over a 64-bit bus, despite both using GDDR5 memory.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MX330 has a TDP of just 10 W and uses no power connectors, making it an integrated graphics processor (IGP). The GTX 460, by contrast, has a 160 W TDP, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and needs a 450 W suggested power supply.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 460 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is the defining story. The MX330 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP108B chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It packs 1,800 million transistors into a tiny 74 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.3M per mm². This modern design allows for a base clock of 1531 MHz and a boost clock of 1594 MHz, with memory running at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

The GTX 460, in contrast, uses the Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, built on a much older 40 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,950 million transistors spread across a massive 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of just 5.9M per mm². Its memory clock is lower at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), and it has no boost clock mechanism listed.

The compute capabilities diverge sharply. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, delivering a pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 38.26 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is 1,224.2 GFLOPS, with FP16 output of 19.13 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio). The GTX 460 has 336 shading units, but more TMUs (56) and ROPs (24), resulting in a much lower pixel rate of 9.450 GPixel/s but a comparable texture rate of 37.80 GTexel/s. Its FP32 output is 907.2 GFLOPS, and it has no FP16 capability listed.

The memory subsystems are also fundamentally different. The MX330 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 offers just 768 MB of GDDR5, but on a much wider 192-bit bus, delivering 86.40 GB/s. This makes the GTX 460 superior in memory throughput despite its smaller capacity.

Where Each One Wins

The MX330 wins in scenarios that favor modern architecture, high clocks, and low power. Its FP32 compute performance is approximately 35% higher than the GTX 460, making it better suited for general-purpose compute tasks and modern game engines that leverage higher shader throughput. Its 2 GB memory capacity is also more practical for modern workloads, as the GTX 460's 768 MB is severely limiting for contemporary applications. The MX330's support for Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1) gives it an edge in API compatibility, and its 10 W TDP means it can be deployed in ultraportable devices where power efficiency is paramount.

The GTX 460 wins in memory-bound scenarios. Its 192-bit memory bus provides 54% more bandwidth than the MX330, which is critical for texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions where memory throughput becomes the bottleneck. Its higher TMU and ROP counts (56 and 24, respectively) give it an advantage in fill-rate-dependent tasks, though its pixel rate is actually lower due to the lower clock speed. The GTX 460 also has a slight edge in raw OpenCL performance, as shown by its head-to-head win, and it offers a wider range of display outputs with 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI, versus the MX330's portable-device-dependent outputs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX330 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Fermi |

| Process Node | 14 nm (Samsung) | 40 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.3M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1531 MHz | None |

| Boost Clock | 1594 MHz | None |

| Memory Clock | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps) | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 768 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 86.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 336 |

| TMUs | 24 | 56 |

| ROPs | 16 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 25.50 GPixel/s | 9.450 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 38.26 GTexel/s | 37.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,224.2 GFLOPS | 907.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 19.13 GFLOPS | None |

| TDP | 10 W | 160 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | None |

| Release Date | 2020-02-09 | 2010-07-11 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 199 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows just how close these two GPUs are despite their generational divide. The GTX 460 scores 7925, narrowly beating the MX330's 7896. This represents a delta of -0.4% for the MX330, which is effectively a statistical tie. The near-identical scores suggest that the MX330's higher FP32 throughput and modern architecture are offset by the GTX 460's superior memory bandwidth and wider memory bus.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the MX330's average score of 8458 is about 6.7% higher than the GTX 460's 7925. This difference is largely attributable to the MX330's performance in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where it scores 9019, a test the GTX 460 cannot run due to its lack of Vulkan support. The MX330's percentile ranking of 43 versus the GTX 460's 41 further reflects this slight overall advantage.

The rival comparisons reinforce the closeness. The MX330's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8870M with an average score of 8462 (0% delta), and it sits just 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon 880M. The GTX 460's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M at 7906 (0.2% delta), with the Quadro P5000 just 1.4% ahead. In both cases, the cards are clustered tightly with their contemporaries, suggesting that neither holds a decisive performance advantage over its peers. The data indicates that while the MX330 is the overall faster GPU in aggregate, the GTX 460 remains a formidable performer in memory-intensive tasks, making the choice between them heavily dependent on the specific workload and platform constraints.