NVIDIA GeForce MX330 vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and NVIDIA Quadro P5000 are both Pascal-era parts, but they were engineered for entirely different corners of the market. The MX330 is a low-power, integrated-class chip for thin laptops, while the Quadro P5000 is a dual-slot workstation behemoth with a professional focus. The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split, with each card claiming a decisive victory in a different workload category.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head comparisons could not paint a more divergent picture. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P5000 delivers a crushing blow, scoring 52,509 points compared to the MX330’s 7,896. That is a massive 85% deficit for the smaller chip, highlighting the sheer computational gap between a 1,224.2 GFLOPS part and an 8.873 TFLOPS behemoth. The data shows the Quadro P5000 is in a completely different performance class for general-purpose compute, outpacing the MX330 by a factor of roughly 6.6x in raw score.

However, the story flips dramatically in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the MX330 emerges victorious with a score of 9,019, defeating the Quadro P5000’s 6,342 by a significant 42.2% margin. This is a counter-intuitive result. Despite having far fewer shading units (384 vs. 2,560), the MX330’s driver optimizations or architectural efficiencies in the Vulkan API allow it to outperform the workstation card. This win is not a marginal one; it is a clear and substantial lead that suggests the MX330 is better suited for certain modern, low-level graphics APIs.

When looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the average scores tell a different story than the raw compute numbers. The Quadro P5000’s average benchmark score is 8,039, while the MX330’s is 8,458. This puts the MX330 slightly ahead on average, a 0.3% delta, despite its massive loss in OpenCL. This is because the Quadro P5000’s average is dragged down by its low scores in other tests, such as its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 170 and DirectX 12 score of 44. The MX330’s two scores are both in the 7,000-9,000 range, giving it a more consistent profile. The Quadro P5000 sits in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the MX330 sits slightly higher at the 43rd percentile, reinforcing the idea that while the Quadro is a compute monster, its overall gaming or general-purpose performance is not as dominant.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 is significantly faster, scoring 52,509 versus the GeForce MX330’s 7,896, a performance deficit of 85% for the MX330.

Q: Does the GeForce MX330 win any benchmarks against the Quadro P5000?

A: Yes. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the MX330 scores 9,019, which is 42.2% higher than the Quadro P5000’s 6,342.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The MX330 has a marginally higher average benchmark score of 8,458, compared to the Quadro P5000’s 8,039, a difference of 0.3%.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GeForce MX330 ranks higher, sitting in the 43rd percentile, while the Quadro P5000 is in the 41st percentile.

Q: Are there other benchmarks available for the Quadro P5000?

A: The data includes Passmark tests for DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute, with scores of 170, 77, 102, 44, 674, 12,634, and 6,508, respectively. It also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,330.

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

A: The Quadro P5000 uses 16 GB of GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, yielding 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth, while the MX330 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the Pascal architecture, but they are fundamentally different chips. The MX330 uses the GP108B chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This chip is incredibly small at 74 mm² and contains 1,800 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 24.3M per mm². In contrast, the Quadro P5000 is based on the GP104 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 16 nm process. This is a much larger die at 314 mm², housing 7,200 million transistors with a slightly lower density of 22.9M per mm². The process node difference is minor, but the sheer scale of the GP104 is the primary architectural differentiator.

The execution resources are where the gap becomes a canyon. The Quadro P5000 is equipped with 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The MX330 is drastically scaled down, with only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the Quadro P5000 has a theoretical pixel rate of 110.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 277.3 GTexel/s, dwarfing the MX330’s 25.50 GPixel/s and 38.26 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance tells a similar story: the Quadro’s 8.873 TFLOPS is over seven times the MX330’s 1,224.2 GFLOPS. The FP16 rates are also lopsided, with the Quadro at 138.6 GFLOPS and the MX330 at a mere 19.13 GFLOPS, both using a 1:64 ratio.

The memory subsystems are also architecturally distinct. The Quadro P5000 features 16 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 256-bit interface, providing 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX330 is limited to 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of just 56.06 GB/s. This massive difference in memory capacity and bandwidth is crucial for professional workloads like large 3D scenes or high-resolution textures, where the Quadro P5000 has a clear advantage. Both cards support the same API feature levels, including DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification. The most obvious difference is the process node: the MX330 uses a 14 nm Samsung process, while the Quadro P5000 uses a 16 nm TSMC process. The chip designations are also different, with the MX330 using the GP108B and the Quadro P5000 using the GP104. The transistor counts are starkly different, with the Quadro P5000 packing 7,200 million transistors versus the MX330’s 1,800 million.

Clock speeds show a reversal of the expected trend. The Quadro P5000 has a higher base clock of 1607 MHz and a higher boost clock of 1733 MHz, compared to the MX330’s 1531 MHz base and 1594 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ, with the Quadro’s memory running at 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) and the MX330’s at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The memory configuration is a major differentiator: 16 GB of GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus for the Quadro versus 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus for the MX330.

The power and physical profiles are polar opposites. The Quadro P5000 has a TDP of 180 W and requires a single 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. It is a dual-slot card, measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The MX330, on the other hand, has a TDP of just 10 W, uses no power connectors, and is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a slot width of "IGP," meaning it is typically soldered to a motherboard. The bus interface also differs, with the Quadro P5000 using a full PCIe 3.0 x16 connection, while the MX330 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x4. Finally, the Quadro P5000 has a fixed set of display outputs (1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the MX330’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the Quadro P5000 is the undisputed champion for raw compute and professional graphics workloads. Its 52509 score in Geekbench OpenCL demonstrates a level of parallel processing power that the MX330 cannot approach. The 16 GB of memory and 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth make it the clear choice for tasks like rendering complex scenes, scientific simulations, or video editing with high-resolution footage. Its higher pixel rate and texture rate further solidify its position for heavy 3D rendering. The Quadro P5000 is also the only one of the two with a launch MSRP, listed at 2,499 USD.

The GeForce MX330 wins in the specific scenario of Vulkan-based applications. Its 42.2% lead in the Geekbench Vulkan test is a significant result, suggesting that for games or applications that leverage this modern API, the MX330 may deliver a smoother experience despite its weaker specifications. Its low 10 W TDP and IGP form factor also make it the only viable option for ultra-thin, power-efficient laptops, as the Quadro P5000’s dual-slot design and 180 W power draw are impossible to integrate into such a chassis. The MX330 also has a higher average benchmark score and a higher percentile ranking, indicating that for a mix of general tasks, it might be the more balanced performer.

In summary, the choice is clear-cut: the Quadro P5000 is for professionals who need maximum compute and memory bandwidth, while the MX330 is for users who prioritize power efficiency and find themselves working within the Vulkan ecosystem. The benchmark data shows a tie in wins, but the nature of those wins could not be more different.