NVIDIA GeForce MX330 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 are both Pascal-generation GPUs, but they occupy opposite ends of the NVIDIA lineup. The Quadro P4000 is a professional workstation card, while the MX330 is a low-power mobile chip. The recorded data shows a massive performance gulf, with the Quadro P4000 winning both head-to-head benchmarks by margins exceeding 350%. This analysis breaks down what that means for different use cases, based strictly on the database measurements.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 dominates the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 in every recorded benchmark. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P4000 scores 36212 against 7896 for the MX330, a 358.6% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens slightly, with the Quadro P4000 at 41786 versus 9019, a 363.3% advantage. The average benchmark score tells the same story: the Quadro P4000 averages 9665 across its benchmark suite, while the MX330 averages 8458. The Quadro P4000 also ranks in the 47th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 43rd percentile for the MX330.

Who should pick which? From the data, the Quadro P4000 is the choice for anyone who needs compute performance, higher memory capacity, or professional display outputs. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus provide 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth, a massive advantage over the MX330's 2 GB and 56.06 GB/s. The MX330, by contrast, is a 10 W integrated-class part with no power connectors and a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, clearly designed for portability over performance. The nearest rivals confirm the positioning: the Quadro P4000 sits alongside the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (0.1% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (0.2% ahead), while the MX330 matches the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (0% delta) and sits just behind the Intel Arc A380 (1.2% behind). Simply put, the Quadro P4000 competes with mid-range desktop parts, while the MX330 trades blows with older mobile GPUs. The MX330 is only viable if the workload is light and power consumption is the overriding constraint.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is 358.6% faster, scoring 36212 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 7896 for the NVIDIA GeForce MX330.

Q: How do the two compare in Vulkan graphics performance?

A: The Quadro P4000 scores 41786 in Geekbench Vulkan, a 363.3% advantage over the MX330's 9019.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P4000 reaches 243.3 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, compared to 56.06 GB/s over a 64-bit bus for the MX330.

Q: Are both GPUs the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Pascal architecture, but the Quadro P4000 uses the GP104 chip on a 16 nm TSMC process, while the MX330 uses the GP108B chip on a 14 nm Samsung process.

Q: Which GPU is better for a thin laptop?

A: The MX330, with a 10 W TDP and integrated form factor (IGP), is clearly designed for low-power portable devices. The Quadro P4000 requires a 105 W TDP, a 6-pin power connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the Pascal architecture, but the silicon is entirely different. The Quadro P4000 uses the GP104 chip, built on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.9M per mm². The MX330 uses the GP108B chip, built on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It packs 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, for a density of 24.3M per mm². The process node difference is notable: 16 nm versus 14 nm, but the Quadro P4000's die is over four times larger, which explains its far higher transistor count and compute resources.

The feature sets also diverge. The Quadro P4000 offers 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. The display output situation is different: the Quadro P4000 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the MX330's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies on the host laptop's panel and connections.

The compute rates reflect the hardware gap. The Quadro P4000 delivers 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 82.88 GFLOPS of FP16 (at a 1:64 ratio). The MX330 delivers 1,224.2 GFLOPS of FP32 and 19.13 GFLOPS of FP16, also at a 1:64 ratio. In pixel rate, the Quadro P4000 hits 94.72 GPixel/s versus 25.50 GPixel/s for the MX330. Texture rate tells a similar story: 165.8 GTexel/s versus 38.26 GTexel/s. The architectural differences are straightforward: one is a full-scale professional chip, the other is a cut-down mobile part.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences are stark. The Quadro P4000 has a base clock of 1202 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz, while the MX330 runs higher at 1531 MHz base and 1594 MHz boost. The higher clocks on the MX330 cannot compensate for the massive difference in core count and memory subsystem.

Memory is the biggest differentiator. The Quadro P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 56.06 GB/s. The memory clock also differs: 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro P4000 versus 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the MX330. The bandwidth gap is more than fourfold, which heavily impacts any memory-bound workload.

Power and physical design are polar opposites. The Quadro P4000 has a 105 W TDP, is a single-slot card, uses a 1x 6-pin power connector, and requires a 300 W suggested PSU. It measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The MX330 has a 10 W TDP, is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor), uses no power connectors, and has no listed dimensions. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro P4000 versus PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX330. The Quadro P4000 launched in February 2017 with a launch MSRP of 815 USD, while the MX330 launched in February 2020 with no launch MSRP recorded. Both are now end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmarks, and the Quadro P4000 wins both. The first is Geekbench OpenCL: the Quadro P4000 scores 36212, the MX330 scores 7896. That is a delta of 358.6% in favor of the Quadro P4000. To put that in context, the MX330's score is roughly one-fifth of the Quadro P4000's output. The second is Geekbench Vulkan: the Quadro P4000 scores 41786, the MX330 scores 9019, a delta of 363.3%. The Vulkan margin is slightly larger than the OpenCL margin, suggesting the Quadro P4000's advantage scales with graphics API workload intensity.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. The Quadro P4000 averages 9665 across all its recorded tests, which include 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (1115), Passmark DirectX 10 (66), DirectX 11 (86), DirectX 12 (40), DirectX 9 (181), G2D (786), G3D (11466), and GPU Compute (4913). The MX330 averages 8458, but it only has two recorded tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The delta between averages is 1207 points, a modest 14.3% difference. However, the head-to-head deltas are what matter most here, and they show a dominant Quadro P4000 win count of 2 wins against 0 wins for the nearest rivals.

Looking at nearest rival comparisons, the Quadro P4000's 9665 average places it 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5000, and 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Tesla C2070. The MX330's 8458 average is 0% away from the AMD Radeon HD 8870M, 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. These rival deltas confirm that the Quadro P4000 is grouped with mid-range desktop-class parts, while the MX330 is grouped with older mobile parts.

Where Each One Wins

Based on recorded wins, the Quadro P4000 wins in any scenario requiring raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rate of 5.304 TFLOPS is over four times that of the MX330's 1,224.2 GFLOPS. Texture-heavy workloads favor the Quadro P4000 with 165.8 GTexel/s, as does anything pixel-bound with 94.94 GPixel/s versus 25.50 GPixel/s. Memory-intensive applications, such as large model rendering or high-resolution textures, clearly favor the Quadro P4000 with its 243.3 GB/s bandwidth and 8 GB capacity. The 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs also allow multi-monitor professional setups that the MX330 cannot match.

The MX330 wins only in the narrow case of power-constrained environments. Its 10 W TDP is a fraction of the 105 W TDP of the Quadro P4000, and it requires no power connectors and no auxiliary power. It fits into portable devices as an IGP, which is impossible for a single-slot 241 mm card. The MX330 also runs at somewhat higher base and boost clocks, 1531 MHz and 1594 MHz versus 1202 MHz and 1480 MHz, which could slightly close the gap in lightly threaded tasks. But the overall delta of 0% to the AMD Radeon HD 8870M shows that the MX330 is positioned among older parts, not current-generation performers. The Quadro P4000, with a 358.6% and 363.3% lead in both head-to-head tests, wins decisively wherever performance matters. The MX330 is for portability first, and the Quadro P4000 is for everything else.