NVIDIA GeForce MX330 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile NVIDIA parts. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins both recorded head-to-head tests, making it the stronger performer in the database. The GeForce MX330, despite its newer architecture and much lower power draw, does not take a single win in the recorded benchmarks.

The Quadro M2000M's advantage is largest in OpenCL compute workloads. It scores 10,057 against the MX330's 7,896, a 27.4% lead. This is a substantial gap that suggests the Quadro is better suited for GPU-accelerated compute tasks, rendering, or any workload that exercises general-purpose processing. The Quadro also wins the Vulkan test, though by a much smaller margin: 9,606 versus 9,019, a 6.5% difference. That narrower gap indicates the MX330 is comparatively closer in graphics-oriented API performance than in raw compute throughput.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro M2000M sits at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, while the MX330 sits at the 43rd percentile. Both are mid-pack performers, but the Quadro is positioned slightly higher overall. The average benchmark score for the Quadro is 9,832, while the MX330 averages 8,458. That 1,374-point difference in average score reinforces the idea that the Quadro is the more capable part across the aggregate of recorded workloads.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The Quadro M2000M is the choice when compute performance matters most, particularly in OpenCL-heavy applications. The MX330 is not without merit, however. Its 10 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Quadro's 55 W, which makes it better suited for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals take priority over raw performance. The MX330 is also a much newer design, released in 2020 compared to the Quadro's 2015 debut, so it brings newer feature support in areas like DirectX 12_1.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different generations of NVIDIA design philosophy. The Quadro M2000M uses the GM107 chip built on Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The MX330 uses the GP108B chip on Pascal architecture, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. The process node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 14 nm. That explains why the MX330 achieves a much higher transistor density of 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter, compared to the Quadro's 12.6 million.

Transistor counts are nearly identical. The Quadro has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the MX330 has 1,800 million on a much smaller 74 mm² die. The MX330 packs essentially the same number of transistors into half the silicon area, a direct result of the newer manufacturing process.

The compute configurations differ in ways that are not immediately obvious from the raw transistor counts. The Quadro M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro has substantially more shader and texture hardware, which explains its higher theoretical throughput in many workloads. The MX330 counters with higher clock speeds: 1,531 MHz base and 1,594 MHz boost, versus the Quadro's 1,098 MHz base and 1,137 MHz boost. Clock advantage alone cannot overcome the Quadro's larger execution resource pool.

Memory configurations also diverge. The Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX330 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 56.06 GB/s. The Quadro has both more memory capacity and higher bandwidth, which matters for larger datasets and memory-intensive workloads. The MX330's memory runs at a higher effective speed of 7 Gbps versus the Quadro's 5 Gbps, but the narrower bus limits overall throughput.

Feature support shows generational progress on the MX330's side. It supports DirectX 12_1, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The MX330 also lists a fp16 rate of 19.13 GFLOPS, though at a heavily reduced 1:64 ratio, while the Quadro lists no fp16 figure at all. The MX330 connects via PCIe 3.0 x4, while the Quadro uses the MXM-A (3.0) module interface. The Quadro is a removable MXM module, while the MX330 is an integrated IGP soldered to the motherboard.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains only two tests, but both carry clear signals. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M2000M scores 10,057 against the MX330's 7,896. That 27.4% delta is the largest gap in the comparison. This result aligns with the Quadro's hardware profile: more shading units, more TMUs, double the memory bus width, and nearly 45% more memory bandwidth. OpenCL workloads often scale with these resources, so the Quadro's decisive win here is consistent with its specifications.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows considerably. The Quadro scores 9,606, the MX330 scores 9,019, and the delta shrinks to 6.5%. Vulkan is a lower-level graphics API that can be more sensitive to driver efficiency and architectural efficiency rather than raw resource counts. The MX330's newer Pascal architecture and higher clocks help it close the gap in this test, though it still falls short of the Quadro's result.

The average benchmark scores from the database reinforce the head-to-head results. The Quadro M2000M averages 9,832 across recorded benchmarks, placing it just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and 0.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000. It also sits 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla M10 in the nearest rival list. These are tight margins, indicating the Quadro performs in line with a cluster of mid-range professional and consumer GPUs from its era.

The MX330 averages 8,458, placing it essentially tied with the AMD Radeon HD 8870M at a 0% delta. It sits 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon 880M, 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX, and 1.2% behind the Intel Arc A380. The MX330's nearest rivals are a mix of older mobile parts and newer integrated solutions, which is consistent with its position as a low-power entry-level discrete GPU.

The data indicates that the Quadro M2000M's compute advantage is real and measurable, while the MX330's closer Vulkan result suggests it is not simply outclassed in every scenario. For users prioritizing the two recorded workloads, the Quadro is the stronger choice in both.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has an average benchmark score of 9,832, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has an average score of 8,458.

Q: How large is the gap in OpenCL performance?

A: The Quadro M2000M scores 10,057 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 27.4% higher than the MX330's score of 7,896.

Q: Is the MX330 closer in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Vulkan the Quadro M2000M scores 9,606 versus the MX330's 9,019, a margin of only 6.5%.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a lower power draw?

A: The GeForce MX330 has a 10 W TDP, compared to the Quadro M2000M's 55 W TDP.

Q: How do the two compare in transistor density?

A: The MX330, built on a 14 nm process, achieves 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro M2000M, built on 28 nm, achieves 12.6 million per square millimeter.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy between these two parts. The Quadro M2000M wins both recorded benchmarks and holds a 27.4% advantage in OpenCL compute. It also has double the memory capacity, more than double the memory bandwidth, and a substantially larger execution resource pool with 640 shading units versus 384. For anyone running compute-heavy workloads, OpenCL applications, or tasks that depend on memory bandwidth, the Quadro is the stronger choice.

The MX330's case rests on efficiency and modernity rather than raw performance. Its 10 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro's 55 W, making it far better suited for portable systems where power draw and heat are primary concerns. It also brings a newer architecture with DirectX 12_1 support and a smaller 74 mm² die size. The Vulkan benchmark shows it can compete reasonably well when the workload favors newer architecture traits, trailing by only 6.5%.

The percentile rankings reflect this split. The Quadro sits at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, the MX330 at the 43rd. Both are near the middle of the pack, but the Quadro is meaningfully higher in the recorded aggregate data. The nearest rival comparisons show the Quadro trading tightly with the Quadro 6000, FirePro W5000, GTX 1070, and Tesla M10, all within 1.1% of its average score. The MX330 trades with the Radeon HD 8870M, Radeon 880M, GTX 675MX, and Arc A380, all within 1.2%.

Users who need compute performance, larger memory capacity, or higher bandwidth should choose the Quadro M2000M. Users who need a low-power GPU for everyday graphics and light workloads should choose the MX330, accepting lower benchmark scores in exchange for dramatically reduced power consumption.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M2000M | NVIDIA GeForce MX330 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 1,800 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 74 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 24.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1098 MHz | 1531 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1137 MHz | 1594 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 56.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 384 |

| TMUs | 40 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.19 GPixel/s | 25.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 45.48 GTexel/s | 38.26 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,455.4 GFLOPS | 1,224.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 10 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

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

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

| Release Date | 2015-12-02 | 2020-02-09 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |