NVIDIA GeForce MX330 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and NVIDIA Quadro K4100M represent two very different eras of mobile graphics, and the benchmark data reflects that divide clearly. The Quadro K4100M, a professional mobile workstation part from 2013, edges out the much newer MX330 in the single head-to-head benchmark available, while the MX330 counters with a strong showing in synthetic compute tests. The data shows a fascinating clash between a low-power, modern architecture and an older, high-end professional chip with vastly different resource allocations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available between these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it yields a decisive win for the older Quadro K4100M. The Quadro scores 9149 points, while the GeForce MX330 manages 7896 points. That translates to a 13.7% advantage for the Quadro K4100M in this compute-heavy workload. This is a significant margin, indicating that the Quadro's sheer number of processing units can overcome its much lower clock speeds and older architecture. The MX330's average benchmark score of 8458 across all tests, however, actually surpasses the Quadro's average of 7906, suggesting the newer chip is more consistent in a broader range of tasks, even if it loses the specific OpenCL battle.

Looking at the broader picture, the MX330's overall performance profile is competitive with a different class of hardware. Its average score of 8458 places it within a hair of the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462), which is its closest rival with a 0% deltaPct. It also sits just ahead of the AMD Radeon 880M (8436) by 0.3% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8427) by 0.4%. The only GPU in its immediate vicinity that beats it is the Intel Arc A380 (8558), which outperforms the MX330 by 1.2%. These are tight margins, suggesting the MX330 delivers a very balanced compute performance for its class.

The Quadro K4100M, despite its win in the direct comparison, sits in a slightly lower overall percentile bracket. Its average score of 7906 is just behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 (7925) by 0.2%. It also trails the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (8039) by 1.7%, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (8040) by 1.7%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8053) by 1.8%. This shows that while it can outperform the MX330 in the specific OpenCL test, its overall standing is lower, and it is more comparable to older desktop GPUs than to modern mobile solutions. The MX330 achieves a 43rd percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the Quadro K4100M sits at the 41st, a small but noticeable difference in overall capability.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two chips is immense, defined first and foremost by their manufacturing processes and underlying designs. The GeForce MX330 is built on the Pascal architecture using a 14 nm process at Samsung, packing 1,800 million transistors into a tiny 74 mm² die. In contrast, the Quadro K4100M uses the older Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with a massive 3,540 million transistors spread across a 294 mm² die. This fundamental difference explains the efficiency gap: the MX330 has a transistor density of 24.3M / mm², while the Quadro manages only 12.0M / mm².

The compute resources are radically different as well. The Quadro K4100M is equipped with 1152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The MX330, by contrast, has only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the Quadro a massive theoretical advantage in raw throughput, which is why it can win the OpenCL benchmark despite its age. However, the clocks tell a different story. The MX330 runs at a base clock of 1531 MHz and boosts to 1594 MHz, while the Quadro is locked at a static 706 MHz. The MX330's higher clocks help it close the gap in many scenarios, but cannot fully compensate for the Quadro's 3x advantage in shading units.

Memory configurations also set these two apart. The MX330 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K4100M, on the other hand, comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a much wider 256-bit bus, providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. This nearly double bandwidth is crucial for professional workloads and further explains the Quadro's OpenCL lead. The memory clocks also differ, with the MX330 running at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) and the Quadro at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The MX330's higher memory clock partially mitigates its narrow bus, but the Quadro's overall bandwidth advantage remains substantial.

FAQ

Q: Why does the older Quadro K4100M beat the newer MX330 in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Quadro K4100M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9149 versus the MX330's 7896, a 13.7% margin. This is largely due to its vastly higher number of shading units (1152 versus 384) and its 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which outweigh the MX330's higher clock speeds and modern architecture in this specific compute workload.

Q: Which GPU has a better overall benchmark average?

A: The GeForce MX330 has a higher average benchmark score of 8458 compared to the Quadro K4100M's 7906. This indicates that despite losing the single head-to-head test, the MX330 performs more consistently across a wider range of benchmarks, placing it in the 43rd percentile versus the Quadro's 41st.

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

A: The MX330's average score of 8458 puts it on par with the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462) at a 0% deltaPct. It is slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon 880M (8436) by 0.3% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8427) by 0.4%, but trails the Intel Arc A380 (8558) by 1.2%.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The data shows a stark contrast. The GeForce MX330 has a TDP of just 10 W, making it an integrated-style, ultra-low-power chip. The Quadro K4100M, in contrast, has a TDP of 100 W, reflecting its high-performance mobile workstation design and its MXM Module form factor.

Q: What are the API level differences?

A: The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. This gives the MX330 a more modern feature set for gaming and newer applications.

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is double the 2 GB found on the GeForce MX330. The Quadro also has a wider 256-bit memory bus compared to the MX330's 64-bit bus.

Specification Differences

The following table outlines the key specification differences between the two GPUs, based on the available data.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX330 | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1531 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1594 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1152 |

| TMUs | 24 | 96 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| FP32 Performance | 1,224.2 GFLOPS | 1.627 TFLOPS |

| Pixel Rate | 25.50 GPixel/s | 16.94 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 38.26 GTexel/s | 67.78 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 10 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | MXM-B (3.0) |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2020-02-09 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | None | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | None | Quadro Maxwell-M |

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce MX330 is the clear winner for efficiency and modern feature support. Its 10 W TDP and integrated form factor make it suitable for slim, lightweight laptops where battery life and heat are primary concerns. It offers a more modern DirectX 12 (12_1) feature set and Vulkan 1.4 support, making it better prepared for contemporary consumer applications and games. Its higher clock speeds (1531 MHz base) and superior pixel fill rate (25.50 GPixel/s) also give it an edge in certain rasterization-bound tasks, and its higher average benchmark score (8458) suggests stronger overall consistency.

The Quadro K4100M is the winner for raw compute throughput and memory capacity. Its 1152 shading units and 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth are the primary reasons it secures a 13.7% victory in the OpenCL benchmark. This makes it better suited for professional applications like CAD, 3D modeling, and scientific simulations that rely heavily on parallel processing and large datasets. Its 4 GB of VRAM is also double that of the MX330, which is essential for handling complex textures and large frame buffers. The Quadro's higher texture rate (67.78 GTexel/s) also indicates a strength in texel-heavy workloads, despite its lower pixel rate.

In short, the MX330 wins on power, efficiency, and modern API compatibility for everyday consumer use. The Quadro K4100M wins on raw computational muscle and memory bandwidth for demanding professional tasks, even though it is a much older and power-hungry design. The choice between them would depend entirely on whether the user prioritizes a low-power, modern solution or a high-throughput, professional-grade workhorse.