NVIDIA GeForce MX330 vs NVIDIA Tesla M10 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear overall winner, but the margin varies dramatically depending on the workload. The NVIDIA Tesla M10 takes both head-to-head victories, yet the scale of those wins tells a nuanced story about where each GPU excels.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Tesla M10 posts a score of 10,318 against the GeForce MX330's 7,896. That is a 30.7% advantage, a substantial gap that reflects the Tesla M10's larger compute footprint. This is the most decisive result in the comparison, and it aligns with the M10's data-center positioning: OpenCL workloads that can scale across its broader execution resources will see a meaningful performance uplift.

The Vulkan result is far closer. The Tesla M10 scores 9,130, while the GeForce MX330 trails by just 1.2% at 9,019. In practical terms, this is nearly a tie. The MX330, despite being a much smaller and lower-power part, manages to stay within striking distance in this API. This suggests that for Vulkan-based titles or applications, the user experience difference would be minimal, and the MX330's architectural efficiency helps it punch above its weight class.

The average benchmark score reinforces the M10's lead: it sits at 9,724, compared to the MX330's 8,458. That is a 15% gap on average, but the distribution is lopsided. The OpenCL delta is responsible for nearly all of the separation, while the Vulkan delta is almost negligible.

Looking at percentile rankings, the Tesla M10 lands in the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX330 sits at the 43rd percentile. The four-point spread is modest, and both cards occupy the mid-to-lower tiers of the overall performance distribution. Neither is a flagship, but the M10's higher placement confirms its edge in raw compute tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations, and that distinction shows up across nearly every design choice. The Tesla M10 uses the GM107 chip on a 28 nm process from TSMC, built on the Maxwell architecture. The GeForce MX330 uses the GP108B chip on a 14 nm process from Samsung, built on Pascal. The node shrink is significant: 28 nm versus 14 nm, which allows the MX330 to achieve far higher transistor density.

The transistor counts are surprisingly close. The M10 packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, giving it a density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The MX330 has 1,800 million transistors on a much smaller 74 mm² die, yielding 24.3 million per square millimeter. That is nearly double the density, a direct consequence of the newer process node.

Memory configuration is another major differentiator. The Tesla M10 carries 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, producing 83.20 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, good for 56.06 GB/s. The M10's memory bandwidth is 48% higher, and its capacity advantage is fourfold. For workloads that need large datasets or high-bandwidth streaming, the M10 is clearly better equipped.

The compute resources also diverge. The M10 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The M10's shading unit count is 67% higher, and its TMU count is 67% higher as well. The ROP counts are identical at 16, which explains why the pixel rates are relatively close: the M10 produces 20.90 GPixel/s, while the MX330 produces 25.50 GPixel/s. The MX330 actually wins on pixel throughput, likely due to its higher clock speeds.

Clock speeds favor the MX330 substantially. The M10 runs at a 1033 MHz base and 1306 MHz boost, while the MX330 operates at 1531 MHz base and 1594 MHz boost. The MX330's boost clock is 22% higher. Memory clocks also favor the MX330: 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective).

The FP32 performance tells a mixed story. The M10 delivers 1.672 TFLOPS, while the MX330 delivers 1,224.2 GFLOPS (or 1.224 TFLOPS). The M10 is 37% ahead in raw single-precision floating-point math. However, the MX330 has a documented FP16 capability of 19.13 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio), which is negligible, while the M10 lists no FP16 figure at all.

Power consumption is where the MX330 dominates. The M10 draws 225 W and requires a dual-slot cooler with a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested 550 W power supply. The MX330 is rated at just 10 W, uses no power connectors, and is designed as an integrated graphics package (IGP). The M10 is a 267 mm card; the MX330 has no listed dimensions because it is meant for portable devices.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different products with distinct purposes. The NVIDIA Tesla M10 is the stronger performer in raw compute, winning both benchmark tests and holding a 30.7% lead in OpenCL. It also offers 8 GB of memory, higher bandwidth, and more shading units. For anyone running OpenCL-heavy compute workloads, large data sets, or applications that can exploit its wider execution resources, the M10 is the clear choice.

The GeForce MX330, however, is not without its merits. Its 10 W power envelope is extraordinary compared to the M10's 225 W, a 22.5x difference. It wins on pixel rate, boasts higher clocks, and comes from a newer 14 nm process with superior transistor density. In Vulkan-based scenarios, it is within 1.2% of the M10, making the performance difference effectively imperceptible.

The average benchmark scores place the M10 at 9,724 versus the MX330's 8,458, a 15% overall gap. The M10's 47th percentile ranking versus the MX330's 43rd percentile confirms this is a mid-range battle, not a top-tier showdown. Neither card approaches the performance of the nearest rivals listed in the database: the M10 sits within 0.6% of the Quadro P4000 and 0.7% of the Radeon Pro WX 2100, while the MX330 is essentially tied with the Radeon HD 8870M and 0.4% behind the GeForce GTX 675MX.

For compute density and memory capacity, pick the Tesla M10. For power efficiency and portability, the MX330 is the only rational option. The M10 cannot be used in a laptop, and the MX330 is not a data-center accelerator. The verdict writes itself based on the recorded data: the M10 wins on performance, the MX330 wins on efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M10 has an average benchmark score of 9,724, while the GeForce MX330 has 8,458, a 15% difference in favor of the M10.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan workloads?

A: The Tesla M10 scores 9,130 in Geekbench Vulkan, and the MX330 scores 9,019. The M10 wins by just 1.2%, making the gap nearly negligible.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Tesla M10 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GeForce MX330 has 2 GB. The M10 also has a wider 128-bit bus versus the MX330's 64-bit bus, yielding 83.20 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Why does the MX330 have a higher pixel rate despite having fewer ROPs?

A: Both GPUs have 16 ROPs, but the MX330 operates at much higher clocks: 1531 MHz base and 1594 MHz boost, versus the M10's 1033 MHz base and 1306 MHz boost. The MX330 achieves 25.50 GPixel/s, while the M10 achieves 20.90 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Tesla M10 is rated at 225 W and needs a dual-slot cooler with an 8-pin connector and a 550 W suggested power supply. The MX330 is rated at 10 W, uses no power connectors, and is an integrated graphics package.

Q: Which GPU is newer?

A: The GeForce MX330 was released on February 9, 2020, while the Tesla M10 was released on May 17, 2016. The MX330 also uses a newer 14 nm process from Samsung, versus the M10's 28 nm process from TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla M10 wins in every scenario that demands raw compute throughput. Its 30.7% OpenCL advantage is the headline number, and its 8 GB memory capacity makes it suitable for workloads that exceed the MX330's 2 GB limit. The M10's 640 shading units and 40 TMUs give it a structural edge in geometry processing and texture-heavy operations. Its FP32 output of 1.672 TFLOPS is 37% higher than the MX330's 1,224.2 GFLOPS. For server-side inference, batch processing, or any task that runs for hours at high utilization, the M10 is the only viable option of the two.

The MX330 wins on portability and efficiency. Its 10 W TDP means it can be integrated into thin-and-light laptops without active cooling. Its 14 nm process and 24.3M transistors per square millimeter density represent a newer design philosophy. The MX330's pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s exceeds the M10's 20.90 GPixel/s, so in rasterization-bound scenarios with simple geometry, it can actually output pixels faster. Its Vulkan score of 9,019 is within 1.2% of the M10, meaning for modern game APIs, the experience is nearly equivalent. The MX330 also has a higher boost clock of 1594 MHz versus 1306 MHz, which helps in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive tasks.

The database shows 2 wins for the M10 and 0 for the MX330 in direct head-to-head tests. But the wins are not uniform in magnitude. The M10's victory is decisive in OpenCL and marginal in Vulkan. The MX330's wins are in non-benchmark categories: power, density, pixel throughput, and clock speed. For a user who values compute above all, the M10 is unmatched here. For a user who values mobility and efficiency, the MX330 is the only choice.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The chip designs are distinct: the M10 uses GM107, while the MX330 uses GP108B. The architecture generations differ, Maxwell versus Pascal. The process nodes are different generations as well, 28 nm from TSMC for the M10 and 14 nm from Samsung for the MX330.

Transistor counts are close, at 1,870 million for the M10 and 1,800 million for the MX330, but die sizes diverge sharply: 148 mm² versus 74 mm². This drives transistor density from 12.6M per square millimeter to 24.3M per square millimeter.

Clock speeds favor the MX330 across the board. Base clock is 1033 MHz for the M10 versus 1531 MHz for the MX330. Boost clock is 1306 MHz versus 1594 MHz. Memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity and bandwidth favor the M10: 8 GB versus 2 GB, 128-bit bus versus 64-bit, and 83.20 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s.

Compute units favor the M10 in count: 640 shading units versus 384, 40 TMUs versus 24, but ROPs are equal at 16. Pixel rate favors the MX330 at 25.50 GPixel/s versus 20.90 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors the M10 at 52.24 GTexel/s versus 38.26 GTexel/s. FP32 output favors the M10 at 1.672 TFLOPS versus 1,224.2 GFLOPS. The MX330 lists FP16 at 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64), while the M10 lists none.

Power and physical specs are opposites: the M10 is 225 W, dual-slot, 267 mm long, with a 1x 8-pin connector and 550 W suggested PSU. The MX330 is 10 W, IGP, no connectors, and no listed dimensions. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the M10 versus PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX330. Display outputs are absent on the M10, while the MX330 is marked as portable device dependent. The DirectX support differs slightly, with the M10 at 12 (11_0) and the MX330 at 12 (12_1).