NVIDIA GeForce MX330 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct benchmark comparison between these two GPUs, and it is a decisive victory for the older card. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 scores 7,896 points. This translates to a 31.7% advantage for the Tesla C2075, a substantial margin that places the two firmly in different performance tiers.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this gap. The Tesla C2075 sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 10,400. Its closest competitor, the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, averages 10,362 points, a mere 0.4% difference. The AMD Radeon RX 550X is 0.8% ahead, and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X sits 1.7% ahead. These are all tight margins, indicating that the Tesla C2075 is performing exactly where its hardware specifications suggest it should.

The MX330, meanwhile, sits at the 43rd percentile, with an average score of 8,458 across its two recorded benchmarks. Its OpenCL score of 7,896 is below its own average, while its Vulkan score of 9,019 is above it. The nearest rivals tell a story of a card that is competitive with older mid-range parts. The AMD Radeon HD 8870M is within 0.0% (essentially identical), the AMD Radeon 880M is 0.3% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX is 0.4% behind. Only the Intel Arc A380, at 1.2% ahead, shows any meaningful separation.

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the Tesla C2075 wins the only shared test, and it does so by a wide enough margin that no other benchmark result in the pack would plausibly close the gap. The MX330's higher Vulkan score does not help here, as the Tesla C2075 has no recorded Vulkan result to compare.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different eras of NVIDIA design, separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The Tesla C2075 is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, using the GF110 chip manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The die is massive: 520 mm², housing 3,000 million transistors, for a transistor density of 5.8M per mm².

The MX330, by contrast, uses the Pascal architecture with the GP108B chip, built on Samsung's 14 nm process. The die is tiny at 74 mm², but it packs 1,800 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 24.3M per mm². This is a 4.2x density improvement, a direct consequence of the process node shrink.

The memory subsystems could not be more different. The Tesla C2075 carries 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 150.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, with 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla C2075 offers nearly 2.7x the memory bandwidth, a critical advantage for compute-heavy workloads.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The Tesla C2075 has no recorded base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective). The MX330 runs at a base clock of 1531 MHz and a boost of 1594 MHz, with memory at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The MX330's clocks are roughly double, but its narrower bus and smaller memory pool cap its effective throughput.

The compute configurations diverge as well. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Tesla C2075 leads in raw unit counts, but 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. The FP32 output favors the MX330 at 1,224.2 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS, though the Tesla C2075 has no recorded FP16 capability while the MX330 lists 19.13 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio.

Power and physical design are starkly opposed. The Tesla C2075 is a dual-slot card with a 247 W TDP, requiring a 550 W power supply and a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector. It measures 248 mm in length. The MX330 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 10 W TDP, no power connectors, and no recorded dimensions. Its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," confirming its laptop-oriented design.

The bus interfaces also differ: the Tesla C2075 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the MX330 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. The MX330 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Tesla C2075 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the Tesla C2075 is a compute-oriented workstation part that wins the only shared benchmark, while the MX330 is a low-power mobile part designed for efficiency, not raw throughput.

The Tesla C2075's 31.7% lead in OpenCL is decisive. The MX330's architectural advantages, including a newer process node, higher clocks, and better API support, do not translate into a benchmark win. The Tesla C2075's massive memory bandwidth (150.3 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s) and larger memory pool (6 GB versus 2 GB) are likely the deciding factors in compute workloads.

The MX330 does have its own strengths: a 10 W TDP versus 247 W, a 14 nm process versus 40 nm, and support for Vulkan 1.4, which the Tesla C2075 lacks entirely. The MX330 also produces higher FP32 output (1,224.2 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS) and faster pixel and texture rates. But these advantages do not appear in the benchmark data.

For anyone choosing between these two, the decision hinges on use case. The Tesla C2075 is the clear choice for compute tasks where OpenCL performance matters. The MX330 is the only option for a low-power, portable system. The data does not support any other conclusion.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 10,400 against the MX330's 7,896, a 31.7% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Tesla C2075 averages 10,400 across its one benchmark, while the MX330 averages 8,458 across its two benchmarks.

Q: How does the MX330's Vulkan score compare to its OpenCL score?

A: The MX330 scores 9,019 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is higher than its OpenCL score of 7,896.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two GPUs?

A: The Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W, while the MX330 has a TDP of 10 W, a difference of 237 W.

Q: What are the memory sizes and bandwidths?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 150.3 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 better API support?

A: The MX330 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla C2075 wins in raw compute performance, as evidenced by its 31.7% lead in OpenCL. Its 6 GB memory pool and 150.3 GB/s bandwidth are suited for large datasets and memory-intensive workloads. The dual-slot design and 247 W TDP indicate a workstation-class card meant for sustained, heavy compute tasks.

The MX330 wins in efficiency and portability. Its 10 W TDP, IGP form factor, and lack of power connectors make it the only viable choice for thin-and-light laptops. It also wins on API compatibility, offering Vulkan 1.4 support and a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_0). Its higher FP32 output (1,224.2 GFLOPS) and faster pixel/texture rates suggest it may handle lighter graphics tasks more responsively, though this is not reflected in the recorded benchmarks.

The MX330's process node advantage (14 nm versus 40 nm) and higher transistor density (24.3M per mm² versus 5.8M per mm²) indicate a more modern, efficient design. Its PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while narrower than the Tesla C2075's PCIe 2.0 x16, provides newer protocol support.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Tesla C2075 uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture and GF110 chip on a 40 nm TSMC process, while the MX330 uses Pascal and GP108B on Samsung's 14 nm process. The Tesla C2075 has a 520 mm² die with 3,000 million transistors, while the MX330 has a 74 mm² die with 1,800 million transistors.

Memory configurations are entirely different: the Tesla C2075 has 6 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 150.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX330 has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the MX330.

Clock speeds are only recorded for the MX330, which runs at 1531 MHz base and 1594 MHz boost, with memory at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The Tesla C2075's memory clock is 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective). The MX330 has higher pixel rate (25.50 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s), texture rate (38.26 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s), and FP32 output (1,224.2 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS). The MX330 also lists FP16 at 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64), while the Tesla C2075 has no recorded FP16 value.

Power and physical specs differ sharply: the Tesla C2075 has a 247 W TDP, dual-slot width, 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors, a 550 W suggested PSU, and 248 mm length. The MX330 has a 10 W TDP, IGP slot width, no connectors, no suggested PSU, and no recorded dimensions. The Tesla C2075 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and has a DVI output, while the MX330 uses PCIe 3.0 x4 and has portable-device-dependent outputs. API support differs: the Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, while the MX330 adds Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1).