NVIDIA GeForce MX330 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 scores 7,896 points against the NVIDIA Quadro 5000’s 7,289 points. That is an 8.3% advantage for the MX330, a clear but not overwhelming margin. The MX330 wins the sole head-to-head matchup, giving it a 1-0 record in direct comparisons.

Looking at the broader context, the MX330’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 8,458 points, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8870M at 8,462 points, the AMD Radeon 880M at 8,436 points, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX at 8,427 points, all within 0.4% of the MX330. The Intel Arc A380 trails slightly at 8,558 points, which is 1.2% ahead of the MX330, so the MX330 sits in a tightly packed cluster of mid-range performers.

The Quadro 5000, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 7,289 points, sitting in the 40th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 at 7,222 points, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7,203 points, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE at 7,171 points, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 at 7,170 points. The Quadro 5000 leads these rivals by margins ranging from 0.9% to 1.7%, but it remains clearly behind the MX330 in raw compute performance.

The delta between the two cards is modest in absolute terms: roughly 600 points in Geekbench OpenCL, or about 8.3% of the Quadro 5000’s score. For a user upgrading from a Fermi-era workstation card to a Pascal-era mobile chip, the gain is real but not transformative. The MX330’s advantage comes primarily from its much higher clock speeds and newer architecture, which we will examine in later sections.

One notable point: the MX330 has a second benchmark result, Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 9,019 points. The Quadro 5000 has no recorded Vulkan result, so this is an area where the MX330 shows capability that the Quadro 5000 simply cannot match in the database. This matters for modern applications that leverage Vulkan for rendering and compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has an average benchmark score of 8,458 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 averages 7,289 points. The MX330 sits in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 5000 sits in the 40th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the MX330 in the OpenCL test?

A: The MX330 scores 7,896 points in Geekbench OpenCL versus 7,289 points for the Quadro 5000, an 8.3% advantage. This is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database.

Q: Does the Quadro 5000 have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the Quadro 5000 in head-to-head comparisons. The MX330 wins the sole recorded test.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card?

A: For the MX330, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8870M with an average score of 8,462 points, just 0% delta. For the Quadro 5000, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 with 7,222 points, a 0.9% delta in favor of the Quadro 5000.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The MX330 supports Vulkan 1.4 and has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,019 points. The Quadro 5000 has no Vulkan support listed and no Vulkan benchmark result.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The MX330 packs 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter on a 74 mm² die, while the Quadro 5000 has 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter on a 529 mm² die. The MX330’s density is roughly four times higher, reflecting its modern 14 nm process versus the Quadro 5000’s 40 nm process.

Where Each One Wins

The MX330 wins in every measurable benchmark category. Its OpenCL score is higher, its Vulkan score exists (the Quadro 5000 has none), and its average benchmark score exceeds the Quadro 5000’s by over 1,100 points. The MX330 also wins on efficiency metrics: it consumes 10 W versus 152 W, and it fits in an IGP slot width versus the Quadro 5000’s dual-slot design.

The Quadro 5000 does have advantages in memory capacity and bandwidth. It offers 2.5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX330 has 2 GB on a 64-bit bus, providing 56.06 GB/s. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound, such as large texture streaming or certain compute tasks, the Quadro 5000’s memory subsystem is substantially stronger. However, the database does not include a benchmark that isolates memory bandwidth, so this advantage remains theoretical.

The Quadro 5000 also has more texture mapping units (44 versus 24) and more raster operation units (40 versus 16). These hardware resources could benefit specific rendering workloads, but the recorded benchmarks do not show a corresponding performance win. The MX330 compensates with higher clock speeds and a newer architecture, achieving 38.26 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s for the Quadro 5000, and 25.50 GPixel/s versus 11.29 GPixel/s.

For practical use, the MX330 is the better choice for general compute and modern API support. The Quadro 5000 might be worth considering only for legacy applications that require its specific display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort) or its larger memory bus, but the performance data does not support a recommendation based on speed.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The MX330 uses a GP108B chip on a 14 nm process from Samsung, with 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The Quadro 5000 uses a GF100 chip on a 40 nm process from TSMC, with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The MX330’s transistor density is 24.3M per mm², while the Quadro 5000’s is 5.9M per mm².

Clock speeds differ dramatically. The MX330 has a base clock of 1531 MHz and a boost clock of 1594 MHz, with memory running at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The Quadro 5000 has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). This explains a large part of the MX330’s performance advantage.

Memory configurations diverge: the MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 5000’s memory bandwidth is more than double, but this does not translate into a benchmark win.

Shading units are close: 384 for the MX330 versus 352 for the Quadro 5000. Texture mapping units favor the Quadro 5000 (44 versus 24), as do raster operations (40 versus 16). However, the MX330’s pixel rate (25.50 GPixel/s versus 11.29 GPixel/s) and texture rate (38.26 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s) are both higher, thanks to its clocks.

Power and physical design differ sharply. The MX330 is rated at 10 W with no power connectors and an IGP slot width, while the Quadro 5000 draws 152 W, requires a 6-pin power connector, a suggested 450 W PSU, and occupies a dual-slot form factor measuring 248 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The MX330 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the Quadro 5000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the MX330 is portable-device dependent, while the Quadro 5000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort.

API support varies: the MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Architecture Differences

The MX330 is built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, the Quadro 5000 on the older Fermi architecture. This generational gap is the single biggest factor in their performance difference. Pascal introduced significant improvements in compute efficiency, clock scaling, and API support compared to Fermi.

The process node difference is stark: 14 nm for the MX330 versus 40 nm for the Quadro 5000. This allows the MX330 to fit 1,800 million transistors into 74 mm², whereas the Quadro 5000 needs 529 mm² for 3,100 million transistors. The MX330’s density is 24.3M transistors per mm², versus 5.9M for the Quadro 5000. Higher density translates directly into lower power draw and higher achievable clocks.

Clock behavior differs fundamentally. The MX330 has defined base and boost clocks, while the Quadro 5000 lists none. This suggests the MX330 is designed to maintain high sustained performance, whereas the Quadro 5000’s clocks were likely limited by its older process and higher thermal envelope.

Memory architecture reflects their different eras. The Quadro 5000 uses a wide 320-bit bus to achieve 120.0 GB/s, a classic Fermi approach. The MX330 uses a narrow 64-bit bus but compensates with faster GDDR5 memory at 7 Gbps effective, still only reaching 56.06 GB/s. The MX330’s approach is more power-efficient but less bandwidth-rich.

Compute capabilities diverge in FP16 support. The MX330 has a listed FP16 performance of 19.13 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio), while the Quadro 5000 has no FP16 data. FP32 performance favors the MX330: 1,224.2 GFLOPS versus 722.3 GFLOPS for the Quadro 5000. This is a 69% advantage for the MX330, consistent with its higher clocks and modern architecture.

The Quadro 5000’s Fermi architecture was designed for professional workstation tasks, with 352 shading units and 44 TMUs. The MX330’s Pascal architecture, despite fewer TMUs and ROPs, delivers higher throughput due to its clock advantage and architectural improvements. The MX330 also supports Vulkan, which the Quadro 5000 cannot, making the MX330 more compatible with modern graphics APIs.

Release timing reinforces the architectural gap: the MX330 launched in February 2020, while the Quadro 5000 launched in February 2011, a nine-year difference. Both are end-of-life products, but the MX330 is a much more recent design.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation: choose the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 for almost any workload. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 8.3%, has a higher average benchmark score (8,458 versus 7,289), sits in a higher percentile (43rd versus 40th), and consumes 142 W less power while taking up far less space.

The MX330’s advantages are rooted in its newer Pascal architecture, 14 nm process, and high clock speeds. Its FP32 performance of 1,224.2 GFLOPS is nearly double the Quadro 5000’s 722.3 GFLOPS. It also supports Vulkan, a modern API that the Quadro 5000 lacks entirely. For compute tasks, gaming, or general GPU acceleration, the MX330 is the superior choice.

The Quadro 5000 has one notable strength: memory bandwidth. Its 120.0 GB/s is more than double the MX330’s 56.06 GB/s, and it has 2.5 GB of memory versus 2 GB. For applications that are heavily bandwidth-bound, such as large data transfers or certain scientific workloads, the Quadro 5000’s memory subsystem could be relevant. However, no benchmark in the database demonstrates a win for the Quadro 5000, so this advantage is speculative.

The Quadro 5000 also offers fixed display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort) and a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, which might matter for legacy workstation setups. But its 152 W power draw, dual-slot size, and 40 nm process make it a poor fit for modern systems.

Who should pick the MX330? Anyone needing a low-power, modern GPU for laptops or small form factor systems, particularly those using Vulkan or requiring high FP32 throughput. Who should pick the Quadro 5000? Only those with specific legacy requirements, such as needing its exact display outputs or a wide memory bus, and who can tolerate its power and size. For everyone else, the MX330 is the data-backed winner.