NVIDIA GeForce MX330 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this workload, the Quadro 6000 records a score of 9,846, while the MX330 trails at 7,896. The Quadro 6000 wins by 24.7%, a substantial margin for a single compute benchmark. This result is notable because the two cards come from different eras and design philosophies, yet the older professional part decisively outperforms the newer mobile chip in raw OpenCL throughput.

Context from the nearest rivals clarifies the meaning of these scores. The Quadro 6000's 9,846 average sits just 0.1% above the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832), 0.4% above the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803), and 0.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780). It also trails the GeForce GTX 870M (9,959) by 1.1%. The MX330's average of 8,458, which combines its OpenCL and Vulkan results, places it essentially level with the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462, a 0% delta), 0.3% above the AMD Radeon 880M (8,436), 0.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427), and 1.2% below the Intel Arc A380 (8,558). The gap between the two headline scores, 24.7%, is far larger than any of the deltas seen within their respective rival clusters, indicating that the Quadro 6000 sits in a distinctly higher performance tier for this workload.

The MX330 does have one additional benchmark entry, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,019, which is not available for the Quadro 6000. That result is higher than the MX330's own OpenCL score, suggesting the Pascal architecture handles Vulkan more efficiently. However, without a comparable Vulkan measurement for the Quadro 6000, the data only supports a direct comparison on OpenCL, and there the Quadro 6000 is the clear winner. The recorded win counts reflect this: the Quadro 6000 has 1 win, the MX330 has 0.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846, which is 24.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce MX330's 7,896 in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: How does the MX330 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The MX330's average benchmark score is 8,458. It is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462, 0% delta), 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon 880M (8,436), 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427), and 1.2% behind the Intel Arc A380 (8,558).

Q: What is the Quadro 6000's position among its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 6000's average score of 9,846 places it 0.1% above the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832), 0.4% above the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803), 0.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780), and 1.1% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959).

Q: Does the MX330 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the MX330 has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,019 and lists Vulkan 1.4 in its API support. The Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan score and no Vulkan version listed in the database.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel fill rate?

A: The MX330 records a pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s, which is higher than the Quadro 6000's 16.07 GPixel/s, despite the Quadro 6000 winning the OpenCL compute benchmark.

Q: What are the power connector requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro 6000 requires one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The MX330 has no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed, as it is designed for integrated deployment in portable devices.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip with the Fermi architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process. The MX330 uses the GP108B chip with the Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. This generational shift is reflected in transistor density: the Quadro 6000 packs 3,100 million transistors across a 529 mm² die, yielding 5.9M transistors per mm², while the MX330 fits 1,800 million transistors onto just 74 mm², achieving 24.3M transistors per mm². The Pascal part is far denser, a direct consequence of the newer process node.

The compute resources differ in configuration. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the MX330 achieves a higher FP32 throughput of 1,224.2 GFLOPS compared to the Quadro 6000's 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The MX330 also has a recorded FP16 rate of 19.13 GFLOPS, listed at a 1:64 ratio relative to FP32, while the Quadro 6000 has no FP16 measurement. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The memory subsystems are also architecturally distinct. The Quadro 6000 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX330 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 56.06 GB/s. The Quadro 6000's memory clock is 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the MX330's memory runs at 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The higher effective memory speed on the MX330 does not compensate for its narrow bus. The Quadro 6000 also supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan listed. The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The bus interfaces differ as well. The Quadro 6000 connects via PCIe 2.0 x16, while the MX330 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. The MX330's interface offers higher per-lane bandwidth but fewer lanes, reflecting its mobile integration role. The Quadro 6000 is a dual-slot card with a 248 mm length and 111 mm height, while the MX330 has no dimensions listed and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) for portable devices. Display outputs also reflect this split: the Quadro 6000 provides 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video, while the MX330's outputs are described as portable device dependent.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows the following differences between the two GPUs:

• Process node: Quadro 6000 is 40 nm (TSMC), MX330 is 14 nm (Samsung).
• Transistors: Quadro 6000 has 3,100 million, MX330 has 1,800 million.
• Die size: Quadro 6000 is 529 mm², MX330 is 74 mm².
• Transistor density: Quadro 6000 is 5.9M / mm², MX330 is 24.3M / mm².
• Base clock: Quadro 6000 has no listed base clock, MX330 has 1,531 MHz.
• Boost clock: Quadro 6000 has no listed boost clock, MX330 has 1,594 MHz.
• Memory clock: Quadro 6000 is 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), MX330 is 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective).
• Memory size: Quadro 6000 has 6 GB, MX330 has 2 GB.
• Memory bus width: Quadro 6000 is 384 bit, MX330 is 64 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: Quadro 6000 is 143.4 GB/s, MX330 is 56.06 GB/s.
• Shading units: Quadro 6000 has 448, MX330 has 384.
• TMUs: Quadro 6000 has 56, MX330 has 24.
• ROPs: Quadro 6000 has 48, MX330 has 16.
• Pixel rate: Quadro 6000 is 16.07 GPixel/s, MX330 is 25.50 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: Quadro 6000 is 32.14 GTexel/s, MX330 is 38.26 GTexel/s.
• FP32: Quadro 6000 is 1,027.7 GFLOPS, MX330 is 1,224.2 GFLOPS.
• FP16: Quadro 6000 has none listed, MX330 is 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64).
• TDP: Quadro 6000 is 204 W, MX330 is 10 W.
• Slot width: Quadro 6000 is dual-slot, MX330 is IGP.
• Power connectors: Quadro 6000 is 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin, MX330 is none.
• Suggested PSU: Quadro 6000 is 550 W, MX330 has none listed.
• Bus interface: Quadro 6000 is PCIe 2.0 x16, MX330 is PCIe 3.0 x4.
• Display outputs: Quadro 6000 is 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video, MX330 is portable device dependent.
• DirectX support: Quadro 6000 is 12 (11_0), MX330 is 12 (12_1).
• Vulkan support: Quadro 6000 has none listed, MX330 is 1.4.
• Dimensions: Quadro 6000 is 248 mm long and 111 mm high, MX330 has none listed.
• Release date: Quadro 6000 was released in December 2010, MX330 in February 2020.
• Launch MSRP: Quadro 6000 is 4,399 USD, MX330 has none listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 6000 wins the only shared benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 24.7%. This makes it the stronger choice for compute-oriented workloads that rely on OpenCL, particularly given its large 6 GB memory pool, 384-bit bus, and 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The data also places it in a higher performance tier overall, as its 47th percentile among all GPUs exceeds the MX330's 43rd percentile. Its nearest rivals include the Quadro M2000M and GeForce GTX 1070, both of which it slightly edges out, confirming that its compute performance remains relevant despite its age. The Quadro 6000 is also the only one of the two with a workstation-style feature set: dual-slot cooling, multiple fixed display outputs, and a 550 W suggested PSU. It is best suited for desktop workstations where power draw, 204 W, is not a constraint and where OpenCL compute throughput matters.

The MX330 wins in several efficiency and specification categories, even though it loses the compute benchmark. Its FP32 output of 1,224.2 GFLOPS is higher than the Quadro 6000's 1,027.7 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s and texture rate of 38.26 GTexel/s both exceed the Quadro 6000's 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s. Its memory runs at a much higher effective speed, 7 Gbps versus 3 Gbps, and it supports newer API features including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The MX330 draws only 10 W, a tiny fraction of the Quadro 6000's 204 W, and requires no power connectors or separate PSU guidance. It is built on a modern 14 nm process with far higher transistor density, 24.3M / mm² versus 5.9M / mm², and is designed for portable devices with no fixed display outputs. For applications that leverage Vulkan, the MX330's recorded Vulkan score of 9,019 suggests a capability the Quadro 6000 simply lacks. The MX330 is therefore the better fit for lightweight, battery-powered systems where efficiency, modern API support, and fill-rate performance take priority over raw OpenCL compute.