NVIDIA GeForce MX330 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M scores 11,771 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 scores 7,896 points. That is a 49.1% advantage for the Quadro K5100M, a substantial margin that places the two GPUs in different performance tiers despite their shared manufacturer.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the gap narrows but remains clear. The Quadro K5100M averages 10,043 points, while the MX330 averages 8,458 points. The difference of roughly 19% in average score reflects not only the OpenCL result but also the additional benchmark coverage each card has. The Quadro K5100M also has a Geekbench Metal score of 8,315, while the MX330 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,019. These API-specific results cannot be compared directly, but they do show that each card has strengths within its supported test suite.

The percentile rankings reinforce the separation. The Quadro K5100M sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the MX330 sits at the 43rd percentile. Neither card is a top-tier performer, but the Quadro K5100M is measurably better positioned in the overall distribution.

Rival comparisons add context. The Quadro K5100M's average score is within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013 points) and 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959 points). It trails the AMD Radeon R9 M375 by a negligible 0.3% (10,070 points) and sits 2% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9,846 points). The MX330, by contrast, is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462 points, 0% delta), 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon 880M (8,436 points), 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427 points), and 1.2% behind the Intel Arc A380 (8,558 points). The rivalry picture is clear: the Quadro K5100M competes in a higher performance neighborhood, while the MX330 sits in a lower band where the margins between competitors are very small.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K5100M wins the only head-to-head benchmark, and it wins by a wide margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, its 11,771 points versus 7,896 points represents a 49.1% lead. This is the dominant data point for any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, which includes general-purpose GPU acceleration tasks such as rendering, simulation, and certain types of data processing.

The MX330 has no head-to-head win in the database. Its Vulkan score of 9,019 is recorded, and this is a respectable result for a low-power mobile GPU, but there is no direct comparison against the Quadro K5100M in Vulkan. The Quadro K5100M, for its part, has no Vulkan score recorded at all, so the MX330 can claim the Vulkan-capable slot in terms of API coverage. The MX330 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K5100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. In modern Vulkan-based applications, the MX330 has a software-level advantage in API version support.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. For compute-heavy tasks measured through OpenCL, the Quadro K5100M is the clear choice. For applications that leverage Vulkan and benefit from newer API features, the MX330 has the edge in compatibility, even though its raw compute output is lower. The MX330 also draws only 10 W, making it suitable for ultra-thin laptops with minimal cooling, whereas the Quadro K5100M is a 100 W MXM module designed for larger, more power-tolerant mobile workstations.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and different process nodes. The Quadro K5100M uses the GK104 chip on the Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The MX330 uses the GP108B chip on the Pascal architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The process node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 14 nm means the MX330's transistors are substantially smaller, which contributes to its dramatically lower power consumption.

The transistor counts tell a story of design philosophy. The Quadro K5100M packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The MX330 has 1,800 million transistors in a 74 mm² die, for a density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. The MX330 achieves nearly double the transistor density, a direct result of the newer 14 nm process. Despite having fewer total transistors, the MX330 crams them much more tightly.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Quadro K5100M runs at a base and boost clock of 771 MHz, with no variation between the two. The MX330 runs at a 1,531 MHz base and 1,594 MHz boost. The MX330's clocks are roughly double those of the Quadro K5100M, which partially compensates for its smaller execution engine.

The execution resources are heavily skewed toward the Quadro K5100M. It has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro K5100M has four times the shading units and more than five times the TMUs. This is why its texture rate reaches 98.69 GTexel/s versus 38.26 GTexel/s for the MX330. Pixel rates are closer: 24.67 GPixel/s for the Quadro K5100M versus 25.50 GPixel/s for the MX330, with the MX330 actually holding a slight edge thanks to its higher clocks.

Floating-point performance follows the shading unit count. The Quadro K5100M delivers 2.369 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the MX330 delivers 1,224.2 GFLOPS, or roughly 1.22 TFLOPS. The Quadro K5100M is about 94% faster in raw FP32 throughput. The MX330 has a recorded FP16 figure of 19.13 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the Quadro K5100M has no FP16 score recorded.

Memory configurations are very different. The Quadro K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth and 3.6 Gbps effective memory speed. The MX330 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, with 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth and 7 Gbps effective memory speed. The Quadro K5100M has four times the memory capacity and more than double the bandwidth, though the MX330 runs its memory at nearly twice the effective speed.

Form factor and interface differ as well. The Quadro K5100M is an MXM module using the MXM-B (3.0) interface, while the MX330 is an integrated graphics processor on PCIe 3.0 x4. Neither card requires external power connectors. The Quadro K5100M has a 100 W TDP, while the MX330 draws only 10 W, a tenfold difference that fundamentally changes the thermal and power design of the systems they target.

API support shows a generational split. The Quadro K5100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MX330 has the newer DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, which matters for compatibility with recent titles and applications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is 49.1% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 11,771 versus 7,896.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro K5100M averages 10,043 points across all recorded tests, compared to 8,458 points for the MX330. The Quadro K5100M also ranks at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX330 ranks at the 43rd percentile.

Q: What are the memory capacities and bandwidths?

A: The Quadro K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 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 lower power consumption?

A: The MX330 draws 10 W, while the Quadro K5100M draws 100 W. The MX330 is an IGP solution, whereas the Quadro K5100M is an MXM module.

Q: Do these GPUs support different DirectX versions?

A: Yes. The Quadro K5100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The MX330 also supports Vulkan 1.4, compared to Vulkan 1.2.175 on the Quadro K5100M.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The MX330 has a transistor density of 24.3 million per square millimeter on a 14 nm process, while the Quadro K5100M has 12.0 million per square millimeter on a 28 nm process.

The Verdict

The database points to a clear split. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is the stronger compute performer, with a 49.1% lead in the only head-to-head benchmark and a higher average score across all tests. Its 8 GB memory capacity, 256-bit bus, and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth make it suited for workloads that need large memory buffers and high throughput, which aligns with its professional Quadro positioning. Its 2.369 TFLOPS of FP32 compute puts it in a class well above the MX330's 1,224.2 GFLOPS.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 is the efficiency pick. At 10 W, it consumes one-tenth the power of the Quadro K5100M, and its 14 nm process with 24.3M transistors per square millimeter represents a much more modern design. It supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which gives it better forward compatibility with recent software. Its 9,019 Vulkan score, while not directly comparable to the Quadro K5100M's Metal or OpenCL results, shows it is a capable low-power part for its class.

Users who need maximum compute throughput and memory bandwidth should choose the Quadro K5100M. Users who prioritize low power consumption, modern API support, and a compact IGP form factor should choose the MX330. The data does not support any other conclusion: these are two GPUs designed for different purposes, and the benchmark results reflect that divergence.