NVIDIA GeForce MX330 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single shared benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 scores 9,716 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 scores 7,896 points. This translates to a 23% advantage for the Tesla C2070, making it the clear winner in the only direct comparison available.

The Tesla C2070's OpenCL result places it at the 47th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9,724 points, 0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780 points, 0.7% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665 points, 0.5% behind), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653 points, 0.7% behind). This clustering shows that the Tesla C2070 sits within a tight performance band, trading blows with a range of professional and consumer cards despite its age.

The GeForce MX330, by contrast, scores 7,896 points in OpenCL, placing it at the 43rd percentile. Its average benchmark score across both recorded tests (OpenCL and Vulkan) is 8,458 points. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462 points, essentially tied at 0% delta), the AMD Radeon 880M (8,436 points, 0.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427 points, 0.4% behind), and the Intel Arc A380 (8,558 points, 1.2% ahead). The MX330 is therefore bracketed by a mix of mobile and desktop parts, with no single rival dominating it by more than a couple of percent.

Looking at the direct head-to-head, the 23% gap in OpenCL is substantial. The Tesla C2070's higher raw shading unit count (448 vs 384) and much wider memory bus (384 bit vs 64 bit) contribute to its advantage in this compute-oriented workload. The MX330 does have a secondary Vulkan score of 9,019 points, but the Tesla C2070 has no recorded Vulkan result, so no cross-API comparison can be made from the database.

The wins tally is straightforward: the Tesla C2070 takes 1 win, the GeForce MX330 takes 0 wins. While that favors the older card, the context matters. The Tesla C2070 is a dual-slot, 238 W workstation accelerator from 2011, while the MX330 is a 10 W integrated-class mobile part from 2020. Their performance profiles reflect entirely different design goals, and the benchmark data captures that divergence clearly.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2070 is faster, scoring 9,716 points versus 7,896 points for the GeForce MX330, a 23% advantage.

Q: Does the GeForce MX330 have any benchmark where it beats the Tesla C2070?

A: No. The only shared benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the Tesla C2070 wins it. The MX330 does have a Vulkan score of 9,019 points, but the Tesla C2070 has no recorded Vulkan result in the database.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Tesla C2070 is within 0.7% of the GeForce GTX 1070 and within 0.1% of the Tesla M10, while trailing the Quadro P4000 by 0.5%. The MX330 is essentially tied with the Radeon HD 8870M (0% delta) and sits 0.3% behind the Radeon 880M and 0.4% behind the GTX 675MX.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Tesla C2070 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384 bit bus with 143.4 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 smaller power footprint?

A: The GeForce MX330 is rated at 10 W and requires no power connectors, while the Tesla C2070 is rated at 238 W and needs one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector.

Q: What is the production status of these GPUs?

A: Both are end-of-life. The Tesla C2070 was released in July 2011, and the MX330 was released in February 2020.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures separated by nearly a decade of development. The Tesla C2070 uses the GF100 chip built on the Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The GeForce MX330 uses the GP108B chip built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This process difference is dramatic: the Fermi chip measures 529 mm² with 3,100 million transistors, while the Pascal chip measures just 74 mm² with 1,800 million transistors. The transistor density tells the story of process maturity: Fermi packs 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter, while Pascal achieves 24.3 million per square millimeter.

The Fermi architecture is a compute-focused design with 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. It has no dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The Pascal architecture in the MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, also without ray tracing or tensor cores. Despite having fewer functional units, the MX330 achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 25.50 GPixel/s and 38.26 GTexel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s for the Tesla C2070. This reflects the much higher clock speeds on the Pascal part.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Tesla C2070 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, while the MX330 runs at a 1531 MHz base and 1594 MHz boost. Memory clocks also diverge: the Tesla C2070 runs its GDDR5 at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the MX330 runs its GDDR5 at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The MX330's FP32 throughput is 1,224.2 GFLOPS, ahead of the Tesla C2070's 1,027.7 GFLOPS, despite the Tesla's larger chip. The MX330 also has a recorded FP16 figure of 19.13 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the Tesla C2070 has no FP16 data.

API support differs as well. The Tesla C2070 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support. The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla C2070 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the MX330 uses PCIe 3.0 x4.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows broad divergence across nearly every category. The Tesla C2070 is a 248 mm dual-slot card with a 238 W TDP, requiring one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector and a 550 W suggested power supply. The MX330 is an integrated graphics processor with a 10 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU rating.

Memory differs sharply: the Tesla C2070 offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384 bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX330 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64 bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla C2070 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs; the MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Display outputs also differentiate the cards: the Tesla C2070 has a single DVI output, while the MX330 is marked as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its intended use in laptops. The Tesla C2070 uses PCIe 2.0 x16; the MX330 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. The bus interface difference matters for bandwidth to the host system, though neither card's compute workload is fully governed by interface width.

The process node and foundry are different: 40 nm TSMC for the Tesla C2070 versus 14 nm Samsung for the MX330. Release dates are nearly nine years apart: July 2011 for the Tesla C2070 and February 2020 for the MX330. Both are end-of-life, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

FP32 performance favors the MX330 at 1,224.2 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS, even though the Tesla C2070 has more shading units. The MX330's higher clocks outweigh the unit count deficit. Pixel rate favors the MX330 (25.50 GPixel/s vs 16.07 GPixel/s), as does texture rate (38.26 GTexel/s vs 32.14 GTexel/s). The Tesla C2070's only clear specification wins are memory capacity, memory bus width, memory bandwidth, TDP (in the sense of being a full desktop card with more power headroom), and the PCIe interface width.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split: the Tesla C2070 wins the only direct benchmark, but the MX330 wins on architectural efficiency and modern feature support. For compute workloads that rely on OpenCL, the Tesla C2070 is the stronger card, delivering a 23% higher score. Its 6 GB memory capacity and 384 bit bus also make it better suited for large datasets that exceed the MX330's 2 GB frame buffer.

However, the MX330 is not without merit. It delivers higher FP32 throughput, higher pixel and texture rates, and supports Vulkan 1.4, which the Tesla C2070 lacks entirely. Its 10 W power draw makes it usable in ultraportable devices where the Tesla C2070's 238 W dual-slot design would be impossible. The MX330 also has a recorded Vulkan score of 9,019 points, indicating strong performance in APIs that the Tesla C2070 cannot run.

Which GPU should be chosen depends on the workload. For legacy compute tasks that fit within the Tesla C2070's memory and use OpenCL, the older card is demonstrably faster in the recorded benchmark. For modern applications that leverage Vulkan or require minimal power consumption, the MX330 is the practical choice. The database shows no scenario where the MX330 beats the Tesla C2070 in a shared test, but its feature set and efficiency make it a more versatile part for contemporary systems.

The Tesla C2070 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX330 sits at the 43rd percentile. Both are near the middle of the database's performance distribution, though the Tesla C2070's single score is higher than the MX330's average across its two tests. Buyers seeking maximum raw compute in the recorded benchmark should pick the Tesla C2070; buyers needing a low-power, modern-API part should pick the MX330.