NVIDIA GeForce MX330 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear pattern of dominance for the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 when directly compared against the NVIDIA GeForce MX330. In the two benchmark tests where both GPUs have recorded scores, the Quadro K5000 wins both, giving it a 2 to 0 advantage in head-to-head matchups.

The most significant gap appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The Quadro K5000 scores 11,418, while the GeForce MX330 manages 7,896. This translates to a 44.6% advantage for the older workstation card. That is a substantial margin, roughly equivalent to the Quadro K5000 delivering nearly one and a half times the compute throughput of the MX330 in this particular workload.

The Vulkan benchmark shows a closer, yet still decisive, outcome. The Quadro K5000 records 11,169 points, while the GeForce MX330 reaches 9,019. The delta here is 23.8%, meaning the Quadro K5000 outperforms the MX330 by nearly a quarter in this graphics API test. While the gap is narrower than in OpenCL, it remains a comfortable win for the Quadro.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro K5000 sits with an average benchmark score of 9,637 across all recorded tests. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645, just 0.1% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653, 0.2% higher), and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665, 0.3% higher). The data places the Quadro K5000 in the 46th percentile of all GPUs tracked.

The GeForce MX330, by contrast, holds an average benchmark score of 8,458, with its closest competitor being the AMD Radeon HD 8870M at 8,462 (a 0% delta). The MX330 lands in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. The difference in average scores between the two cards is 1,179 points, which aligns with the head-to-head results favoring the Quadro.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and design philosophies, which explains much of the performance gap. The Quadro K5000 uses the GK104 chip built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. It packs 3,540 million transistors onto a die size of 294 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M per mm².

The GeForce MX330 takes a different approach. It uses the GP108B chip based on the Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. The transistor count is 1,800 million, but the die is much smaller at 74 mm², yielding a significantly higher transistor density of 24.3M per mm². This modern process node allows the MX330 to achieve more transistors per square millimeter, though the total transistor budget remains far below that of the Quadro.

Clock speeds tell a similar story of generational advancement. The Quadro K5000 runs at a base and boost clock of 706 MHz, with memory clocked at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). The MX330 operates at a 1,531 MHz base clock and 1,594 MHz boost, with memory at 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The MX330's clocks are more than double the Quadro's, reflecting the efficiency gains from the newer process node.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The Quadro K5000 features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, with bandwidth of 56.06 GB/s. The Quadro offers triple the memory bandwidth, a critical factor for data-intensive workloads.

Compute resources favor the Quadro heavily. It has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MX330 has only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. In terms of pixel throughput, the MX330 actually leads slightly with 25.50 GPixel/s versus the Quadro's 22.59 GPixel/s. However, the Quadro dominates texture rate at 90.37 GTexel/s against the MX330's 38.26 GTexel/s.

Floating-point performance shows the Quadro's strength: 2.169 TFLOPS FP32 versus the MX330's 1,224.2 GFLOPS. The MX330 does have a recorded FP16 figure of 19.13 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio), while the Quadro has no FP16 data recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K5000 wins in scenarios that demand raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth. Its 44.6% lead in OpenCL indicates strong performance in general-purpose GPU computing, where the higher shading unit count and wider memory bus come into play. The 172.8 GB/s bandwidth versus 56.06 GB/s makes the Quadro better suited for tasks involving large datasets, such as rendering, simulation, or professional visualization workloads. The 4 GB memory capacity also allows it to handle larger working sets without spilling to system memory.

The GeForce MX330 wins in efficiency and portability. Its 10 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro's 122 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power draw and heat generation are critical constraints. It is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) in terms of slot width, whereas the Quadro is a dual-slot card requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The MX330 also supports PCIe 3.0 x4, while the Quadro uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.

In Vulkan workloads, the MX330 is closer to the Quadro, showing only a 23.8% deficit. This suggests that in modern graphics APIs, the newer architecture of the MX330 partially compensates for its lower raw specifications. The MX330 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, meaning the MX330 has broader API compatibility for newer software titles.

The Verdict

Based strictly on recorded benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 is the superior performer in raw compute and graphics workloads. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score (9,637 versus 8,458), and sits at a higher percentile rank (46th versus 43rd). Users who prioritize OpenCL compute performance or Vulkan graphics throughput should choose the Quadro K5000.

However, the GeForce MX330 is not without merit. Its 10 W power draw, compact IGP form factor, and lack of external power connectors make it the only viable option for portable, low-power systems. The MX330's higher clock speeds and newer Pascal architecture provide better efficiency per watt, though the database does not include direct power efficiency metrics.

The data does not support choosing the MX330 for performance reasons. Where the MX330 wins is in physical and thermal design assumptions, not benchmark results. If the workload fits within a 10 W envelope and requires a portable device, the MX330 is the appropriate pick. If performance is the sole criterion, the Quadro K5000 is the clear winner, despite being end-of-life and having a release date of 2012-08-16, versus the MX330's 2020-02-09.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 has an average benchmark score of 9,637, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 scores 8,458.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K5000 in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro K5000 scores 11,418 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 44.6% higher than the MX330's 7,896.

Q: Does the GeForce MX330 win any head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head tests, the Quadro K5000 wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, giving it a 2 to 0 record.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K5000 has 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX330 has 56.06 GB/s. The Quadro offers roughly three times the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The GeForce MX330 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K5000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The Quadro K5000 has a TDP of 122 W, while the GeForce MX330 has a TDP of 10 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K5000 | NVIDIA GeForce MX330 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Kepler | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

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

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 74 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 24.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 706 MHz | 1531 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 706 MHz | 1594 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz, 5.4 Gbps effective | 1752 MHz, 7 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 56.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 384 |

| TMUs | 128 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 22.59 GPixel/s | 25.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 90.37 GTexel/s | 38.26 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.169 TFLOPS | 1,224.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not recorded | 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 122 W | 10 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm length, 111 mm height | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2012-08-16 | 2020-02-09 |

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | Not recorded |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | Not recorded |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | Not recorded |