NVIDIA GeForce MX330 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and NVIDIA GeForce MX330 are both Pascal-generation parts, but they occupy completely different corners of the market. The data shows a professional workstation card with a 44th percentile ranking against all GPUs, while the MX330 is a low-power mobile chip sitting at the 43rd percentile. Despite their close average benchmark scores, the head-to-head results reveal a massive performance gulf that comes down to architecture, memory, and intended use case.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmarks shared between these cards are Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, and both are decisive wins for the Quadro P2200. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P2200 scores 32,344 against the MX330’s 7,896, a delta of 309.6%. That is not a marginal lead; the Quadro P2200 is over four times faster in this compute workload. The Vulkan test tells a similar story, with the Quadro P2200 hitting 31,351 versus the MX330’s 9,019, a 247.6% advantage.

These deltas dwarf anything seen in the nearest-rival comparisons for either card. The Quadro P2200’s closest rival, the GeForce GTX 460 v2, trails by only 0.7% in average score, and the MX330’s nearest rival, the Radeon HD 8870M, is essentially tied at 0% delta. The head-to-head margin of 309.6% in OpenCL is not a close race; it is a category difference. The Quadro P2200’s FP32 throughput of 3.822 TFLOPS against the MX330’s 1,224.2 GFLOPS (1.224 TFLOPS) explains the scale of the gap, as does the memory bandwidth: 200.2 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s.

The MX330 does not win either shared benchmark, but its Vulkan score of 9,019 is notably stronger than its OpenCL score of 7,896. The Quadro P2200’s scores are more balanced, with 32,344 in OpenCL and 31,351 in Vulkan. This suggests the MX330’s Vulkan driver path is relatively better optimized than its OpenCL path, but even its best result is still 247.6% behind the Quadro P2200’s worst result in this pair.

Where Each One Wins

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the Quadro P2200 has wins across every category it was tested in. It records a Passmark G3D score of 9,364, a GPU compute score of 3,921, and a G2D score of 881. The MX330 was not tested in Passmark, so its only data points are the two Geekbench tests, both of which it loses. This means the Quadro P2200 has 2 head-to-head wins and the MX330 has 0.

The use-case split is therefore stark. The Quadro P2200 is built for sustained professional workloads: its 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and single-slot design make it a natural fit for multi-monitor workstation setups. Its 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 160-bit bus provides 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth, which is essential for texture-heavy 3D rendering or GPU-accelerated compute. The Passmark G3D score of 9,364, combined with a 44th percentile ranking, places it in the mid-range of all GPUs, but its nearest rivals include the RTX 3050 A Mobile at only 0.7% behind, meaning it trades blows with entry-level modern parts.

The MX330, with its 10 W TDP and IGP slot width, is clearly designed for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals matter more than raw performance. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus delivers 56.06 GB/s, which is enough for basic video playback and light photo editing but will struggle with modern game textures. The 43rd percentile ranking is close to the Quadro P2200’s 44th, but that is misleading: the MX330’s average score of 8,458 is dragged down by its lack of Passmark results, while the Quadro P2200’s 8,686 average includes those additional tests.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the Pascal architecture, but they are built on different processes and foundries. The Quadro P2200 uses the GP106 chip on a 16 nm TSMC process, while the MX330 uses the GP108B chip on a 14 nm Samsung process. The Quadro P2200 has 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². The MX330 has 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, with a higher density of 24.3M per mm². The smaller die and higher density indicate the MX330 is a more modern, power-optimized design, but the Quadro P2200 has far more silicon to work with.

The core configurations are radically different. The Quadro P2200 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 59.72 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 119.4 GTexel/s for the Quadro P2200, versus 25.50 GPixel/s and 38.26 GTexel/s for the MX330. The FP32 performance gap is 3.822 TFLOPS versus 1,224.2 GFLOPS. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, so those fields are null for both.

Memory is another major divider. The Quadro P2200 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X at 1,251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) on a 160-bit bus. The MX330 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) on a 64-bit bus. The bandwidth difference is 200.2 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s, a factor of roughly 3.57. The Quadro P2200’s memory clock is lower, but the wider bus and faster effective speed more than compensate.

The bus interfaces differ as well: the Quadro P2200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the MX330 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. This matters for data transfer to the host system, though both are PCIe 3.0 generation. The Quadro P2200 also has a 75 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MX330 has a 10 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU listed, reflecting its integrated-style placement in laptops.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Quadro P2200 is the superior performer in every measurable way, but the MX330 is not meant to compete with it. The Quadro P2200 wins both shared benchmarks by margins of 309.6% and 247.6%, and its additional Passmark scores show strengths in DirectX 9 (167), DirectX 11 (70), and GPU compute (3,921). The MX330 has no counterpoints in those tests because it was not benchmarked there.

For a professional user running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Quadro P2200 is the obvious choice. Its 5 GB VRAM, 200.2 GB/s bandwidth, and 4x DisplayPort outputs make it suitable for multi-monitor CAD or scientific visualization. The MX330, with its 2 GB VRAM and 56.06 GB/s bandwidth, would bottleneck on any serious compute task. The 43rd percentile ranking for the MX330 is within 1 point of the Quadro P2200’s 44th, but that is a statistical artifact of the MX330 having only two benchmark results.

The MX330 is for a different buyer entirely. Its 10 W TDP and IGP form factor mean it is soldered into laptops where discrete performance is a bonus, not a requirement. The 384 shading units are enough for light gaming or hardware acceleration, but the 64-bit memory bus will limit texture-heavy applications. The Quadro P2200 is a desktop card that requires a PCIe x16 slot and a 250 W PSU; the MX330 is a mobile chip with no standalone dimensions listed.

If the choice is between these two as the primary GPU, the Quadro P2200 wins outright on every data point. If the choice is about what to expect from a portable device, the MX330’s numbers should be read as a baseline for basic acceleration, not for professional rendering.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 32,344 versus the MX330’s 7,896, a 309.6% advantage.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The Quadro P2200 has 200.2 GB/s from 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus. The MX330 has 56.06 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Quadro P2200 has a 75 W TDP, while the MX330 has a 10 W TDP.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro P2200 has 1,280 shading units, compared to 384 on the MX330.

Q: Are there any ray tracing cores in either GPU?

A: No, both the Quadro P2200 and the MX330 have null values for RT cores and tensor cores.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA GeForce MX330 |

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

| Chip | GP106 | GP108B |

| Process Node | 16 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 4,400 million | 1,800 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 74 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.0M / mm² | 24.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1531 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1493 MHz | 1594 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 5 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 160 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 200.2 GB/s | 56.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 384 |

| TMUs | 80 | 24 |

| ROPs | 40 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 59.72 GPixel/s | 25.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 119.4 GTexel/s | 38.26 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.822 TFLOPS | 1,224.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64) | 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 75 W | 10 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 201 mm (7.9 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2019-06-09 | 2020-02-09 |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |