NVIDIA GeForce MX330 vs NVIDIA GRID K2 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and NVIDIA GRID K2 represent two very different answers to the question of what a GPU should do. The MX330 is a low-power mobile chip from the Pascal era, while the GRID K2 is a dual-slot server card built on Kepler for virtualization workloads. Their benchmark results show a clear split, but the reasons go far beyond raw scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is decisive. The NVIDIA GRID K2 scores 10,602 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 scores 7,896 points. This translates to the GRID K2 being 25.5% faster in this test, a substantial margin that reflects the fundamental difference in their compute resources. The GRID K2’s advantage here is not marginal; it is a clear generational and class-based gap.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the picture becomes more nuanced. The MX330 has an average score of 8,458, while the GRID K2 averages 8,080. This is a surprising reversal, showing that in the broader benchmark suite, the MX330 actually edges ahead by approximately 4.5% in overall average performance, despite losing the OpenCL test. The GRID K2’s average is dragged down by its Geekbench Metal score of 5,557, which is far below its OpenCL result. The MX330 counters with a Vulkan score of 9,019 and an OpenCL score of 7,896, giving it a more balanced profile across different APIs.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The MX330 sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GRID K2 is at the 42nd percentile. This means that despite the GRID K2’s massive lead in OpenCL, the two cards perform at nearly identical levels relative to the entire GPU landscape. The MX330’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8870M, with a delta of 0%, while the GRID K2’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce 945M, with a delta of -0.2%. These numbers indicate that both cards occupy a similar performance tier, even if their individual strengths and weaknesses differ wildly.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA GRID K2 is significantly faster, scoring 10,602 versus the MX330’s 7,896, a 25.5% advantage. This is the only head-to-head benchmark available, and it clearly favors the server card.

Q: Why does the MX330 have a higher average benchmark score?

A: The MX330 averages 8,458 across its benchmarks, while the GRID K2 averages 8,080. The GRID K2’s Metal score of 5,557 is substantially lower than its OpenCL score, pulling its average down, whereas the MX330 has more consistent results across OpenCL and Vulkan.

Q: What is the performance percentile of each card?

A: The MX330 is at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, and the GRID K2 is at the 42nd percentile. This shows they are nearly equivalent in overall standing, despite the GRID K2’s OpenCL lead.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The GRID K2 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. This gives the GRID K2 a 160.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 56.06 GB/s for the MX330.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GRID K2 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The MX330 has a higher feature level for DirectX and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: Is the GRID K2 suitable for a desktop PC?

A: The GRID K2 has no display outputs, while the MX330’s outputs are portable device dependent. The GRID K2 is designed for server use, not for driving a monitor.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on entirely different architectures and fabrication processes. The MX330 uses the GP108B chip, based on the Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. It packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 24.3 million per mm². In contrast, the GRID K2 uses the GK104 chip, based on the older Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a much larger 294 mm² die, with a lower density of 12.0 million per mm².

The core configurations are wildly different. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GRID K2 has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the GRID K2 has four times the shading units and more than five times the TMUs, which explains its compute advantage. However, the MX330 has higher clock speeds, with a base of 1531 MHz and boost of 1594 MHz, while the GRID K2’s base and boost clocks are not listed in the data.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The MX330 uses a 64-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, providing 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The GRID K2 uses a 256-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, providing 160.0 GB/s. The GRID K2’s memory clock is 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the MX330 runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), but the wider bus gives the GRID K2 a massive bandwidth advantage.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: pick the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 for general-purpose use and compatibility, and pick the NVIDIA GRID K2 only for specific compute-heavy server tasks. The MX330 wins the overall average benchmark with 8,458 versus 8,080, and it has a higher percentile ranking at 43 versus 42. It also supports newer APIs, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, and consumes only 10 W, making it an integrated-class, portable solution. The GRID K2, despite its 25.5% OpenCL lead, has no display outputs, requires a 550 W suggested PSU, and is a dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP. Its launch MSRP was 5,199 USD, but its end-of-life status and lack of display support make it a poor choice for any standard desktop or laptop use case.

For anyone building a portable or low-power system, the MX330 is the obvious choice. For a server environment where raw OpenCL compute is the sole priority and power consumption is irrelevant, the GRID K2’s 10,602 OpenCL score is compelling. However, the MX330’s superior average score and broader API support make it the more versatile option.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification. The MX330 uses a GP108B chip on a 14 nm Samsung process, while the GRID K2 uses a GK104 chip on a 28 nm TSMC process. The MX330 has 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, while the GRID K2 has 3,540 million on a 294 mm² die. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, versus the GRID K2’s 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

Memory differs significantly: the MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth, while the GRID K2 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MX330 has base and boost clocks of 1531 MHz and 1594 MHz, respectively, while the GRID K2 has no listed base or boost clocks. The MX330’s memory runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the GRID K2’s runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

The TDP is a major differentiator: 10 W for the MX330 versus 225 W for the GRID K2. The MX330 is an IGP with no power connectors, while the GRID K2 is dual-slot with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX330 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GRID K2. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the MX330, while the GRID K2 has no outputs. The GRID K2 is 267 mm long (10.5 inches), while the MX330 has no listed dimensions.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GRID K2 wins in raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 10,602 is 25.5% higher than the MX330’s 7,896. It also has more than double the memory capacity and nearly three times the bandwidth, making it better suited for workloads that require large datasets and high memory throughput. Its FP32 performance of 2.289 TFLOPS dwarfs the MX330’s 1,224.2 GFLOPS, and its texture rate of 95.36 GTexel/s is more than double the MX330’s 38.26 GTexel/s. This is a card for server-side compute tasks where power draw and physical size are not constraints.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins in overall average performance, with 8,458 versus 8,080, and in API compatibility. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the GRID K2’s DirectX 12 (11_0), and Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.2.175. It also has a higher pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s versus 23.84 GPixel/s, and its 10 W power draw makes it feasible for laptops and other portable devices. The MX330’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 880M at 0.3% delta and the Intel Arc A380 at -1.2% delta, while the GRID K2’s rivals are older cards like the GTX 650 Ti Boost at 0.2% delta. The MX330 is the winner for anyone who needs a functional GPU in a mobile form factor, while the GRID K2 is a specialized compute accelerator with a narrow use case.