NVIDIA GeForce MX330 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two end-of-life NVIDIA workstation and mobile GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 wins the OpenCL compute test decisively, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 takes the Vulkan graphics test by an even larger margin. The average benchmark scores are remarkably close — the MX330 posts an 8,458 average against the K1200's 8,265, a difference of roughly 2.3% — yet the underlying architectures and intended workloads diverge sharply. For users prioritizing raw compute throughput in OpenCL-accelerated applications, the K1200 is the data-backed choice. For those targeting Vulkan-based graphics workloads or operating within a 10 W power envelope, the MX330 is clearly superior. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports two distinct use cases. The K1200's 4 GB frame buffer and 128-bit memory bus also give it a capacity advantage in memory-heavy professional tasks, while the MX330's 56.06 GB/s bandwidth and 64-bit bus are more modest but paired with a much higher boost clock. Neither card breaks out of the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, indicating both sit firmly in the entry-level segment of their respective lineages.

Where Each One Wins

The K1200 dominates in OpenCL compute. Its geekbench_opencl score of 8,831 against the MX330's 7,896 represents a 10.6% advantage. This margin is substantial enough to matter in compute-oriented professional applications that leverage OpenCL for tasks like rendering, simulation, or image processing. The K1200's 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units provide the hardware foundation for this win, alongside its 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth — a 128-bit bus that doubles the MX330's 64-bit interface. The K1200 also benefits from a 160 mm board length and single-slot form factor with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it a practical drop-in for multi-display professional workstations.

The MX330 wins decisively in Vulkan. Its geekbench_vulkan score of 9,019 against the K1200's 7,698 yields a 17.2% advantage — the largest delta in the entire comparison. This suggests the Pascal architecture's newer feature set and driver optimization path give it a meaningful edge in modern Vulkan titles and workloads. The MX330's 1,531 MHz base and 1,594 MHz boost clocks are substantially higher than the K1200's 954 MHz and 1,033 MHz, respectively, which helps explain its Vulkan performance despite having fewer shading units (384 vs 512). The MX330 also carries a 10 W TDP against the K1200's 45 W, making it far more suitable for thin-and-light notebooks. Its PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while narrower, is a newer generation than the K1200's PCIe 2.0 x16. The MX330's 25.50 GPixel/s pixel rate and 38.26 GTexel/s texture rate both exceed the K1200's corresponding figures of 16.53 GPixel/s and 33.06 GTexel/s, reinforcing that the MX330 is engineered for fill-rate-heavy graphics work.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and foundries. The MX330 uses the GP108B chip built on a 14 nm Samsung process, while the K1200 uses the GM107 chip on a 28 nm TSMC process. This process gap is fundamental: the MX330 packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.3M per mm². The K1200 holds 1,870 million transistors on a much larger 148 mm² die, yielding only 12.6M per mm². The newer process node explains the MX330's dramatically lower power draw — 10 W versus 45 W — while still delivering competitive or superior clock speeds.

Memory subsystems diverge significantly. The K1200 offers 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The MX330 offers 2 GB GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The K1200's memory clock runs at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the MX330's memory runs at 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The faster memory clock partially compensates for the narrower bus, but the K1200 retains a clear capacity and total bandwidth advantage. This makes the K1200 better suited for large datasets or high-resolution textures that exceed 2 GB.

Compute unit counts favor the K1200 in raw quantity. It has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. However, the MX330's higher clocks flip the raw throughput calculations. The MX330 achieves 1,224.2 GFLOPS FP32, while the K1200 manages 1,057.8 GFLOPS FP32 — a 15.7% advantage for the MX330 in theoretical floating-point performance. The MX330 also lists 19.13 GFLOPS FP16 (1:64 ratio), a feature absent from the K1200's spec sheet. Pixel rate favors the MX330 at 25.50 GPixel/s versus 16.53 GPixel/s, and texture rate favors it at 38.26 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s.

API support shows another generational gap. The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K1200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The K1200's generation label reads "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" despite using the Maxwell GM107 chip, suggesting a naming oddity in the database, while the MX330 belongs to the "GeForce MX (3xx)" generation. The K1200's predecessor is listed as "Quadro Fermi" and its successor as "Quadro Maxwell," while the MX330 has no listed predecessors or successors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 posts an average benchmark score of 8,458, which is 2.3% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K1200's 8,265 average. Both sit at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Quadro K1200 wins the geekbench_opencl test with a score of 8,831 versus the MX330's 7,896, representing a 10.6% advantage for the K1200. This aligns with the K1200's larger memory capacity and wider memory bus.

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The GeForce MX330 wins geekbench_vulkan decisively, scoring 9,019 against the K1200's 7,698. This is a 17.2% margin, the largest performance gap between the two cards in any tested workload.

Q: What are the power requirements of each card?

A: The MX330 has a TDP of 10 W and uses no power connectors, making it suitable for integration in portable devices. The K1200 has a TDP of 45 W, also uses no power connectors, and specifies a 200 W suggested PSU for the host system.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The MX330 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The K1200 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 80.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What display outputs does each card support?

A: The K1200 provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs in a single-slot, 160 mm board form factor. The MX330's display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its IGP slot width and intended mobile integration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains exactly two benchmark tests, and each GPU wins one. This balanced outcome is the single most important finding in the comparison.

In geekbench_opencl, the Quadro K1200 takes a commanding win with a score of 8,831 against the MX330's 7,896. The deltaPct of -10.6% (from the MX330's perspective) means the K1200 outperforms the MX330 by roughly one-tenth in this compute-oriented test. This margin is significant in professional workloads where OpenCL is the primary API. The K1200's advantage likely stems from its 512 shading units — 33% more than the MX330's 384 — and its 4 GB frame buffer. The 80.19 GB/s memory bandwidth is 43% higher than the MX330's 56.06 GB/s, which helps feed those additional compute units. Even though the K1200's FP32 throughput of 1,057.8 GFLOPS is lower than the MX330's 1,224.2 GFLOPS, the benchmark result shows that raw theoretical throughput does not always translate to real-world compute wins. The K1200's larger memory capacity and wider bus appear to be decisive factors in OpenCL execution.

In geekbench_vulkan, the situation reverses dramatically. The MX330 scores 9,019 against the K1200's 7,698, yielding a deltaPct of 17.2% in the MX330's favor. This is the largest performance gap in either direction across the entire comparison. The MX330's Vulkan advantage is striking given its smaller compute unit count and narrower memory bus. The explanation lies in its architectural advantages: a 14 nm Pascal design with significantly higher clock speeds (1,594 MHz boost versus 1,033 MHz), superior pixel fill rate (25.50 GPixel/s versus 16.53 GPixel/s), and better texture throughput (38.26 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s). Vulkan's lower-level API overhead tends to reward raw clock speed and fill-rate efficiency, which plays directly into the MX330's strengths. The 17.2% delta is more than 1.6 times larger than the K1200's OpenCL win, suggesting the MX330's Vulkan superiority is the more pronounced of the two outcomes.

The average benchmark scores reflect this split. The MX330's 8,458 average edges out the K1200's 8,265, but the 193-point difference is small relative to the variance between individual tests. Looking at the nearest rivals provides context for these scores. The MX330's closest competitor, the AMD Radeon HD 8870M, posts an average score of 8,462 — within 0.1% of the MX330. The AMD Radeon 880M trails at 8,436 (0.3% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX sits at 8,427 (0.4% lower). The Intel Arc A380 leads the MX330's rival group at 8,558, which is 1.2% higher. For the K1200, the AMD Radeon R9 M375X posts 8,325, which is 0.7% higher than the K1200's 8,265. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 sits at 8,167 (1.2% lower), the GeForce GTX 950M at 8,135 (1.6% lower), and the AMD Radeon R9 M360 at 8,129 (1.7% lower). These rival clusters confirm that both GPUs occupy the same performance tier, with the MX330 sitting at the upper edge and the K1200 near the lower edge of their respective peer groups. The data ultimately shows two cards that trade blows depending on the API, with the K1200 better for compute-heavy OpenCL work and the MX330 better for modern Vulkan graphics — and the average scores suggest the MX330 holds a slight overall edge.