NVIDIA GeForce MX330 vs NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: Geekbench - OpenCL, PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce MX330
- Videocard is newer: launch date 11 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- Around 2% higher core clock speed: 1531 MHz vs 1500 MHz
- 1138.7x more texture fill rate: 38.26 GTexel/s vs 33.6 billion / sec
- 3.4x more pipelines: 384 vs 112
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 65 nm
- 10.5x lower typical power consumption: 10 Watt vs 105 Watt
- 4x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 512 MB
- Around 67% higher memory clock speed: 1502 MHz (6008 MHz effective) vs 900 MHz
- 4.1x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 228 vs 56
- 5.3x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2405 vs 454
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3352 vs 3304
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3352 vs 3304
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 10 Feb 2020 vs 21 July 2008 |
| Core clock speed | 1531 MHz vs 1500 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 38.26 GTexel/s vs 33.6 billion / sec |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 112 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 10 Watt vs 105 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz (6008 MHz effective) vs 900 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 228 vs 56 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2405 vs 454 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 vs 3304 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 vs 3304 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2845 vs 2784
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2845 vs 2784
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2845 vs 2784 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2845 vs 2784 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX330
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce MX330 | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT |
|---|---|---|
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10706 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 228 | 56 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2405 | 454 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 3304 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 3304 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2784 | 2845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2784 | 2845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3808 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3808 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce MX330 | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Tesla |
| Code name | GP108 | G92 |
| Launch date | 10 Feb 2020 | 21 July 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 757 | 1063 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $160 | |
| Price now | $103.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 8.86 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1594 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1531 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 38.26 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 19.13 GFLOPS (1:64) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 1,224 GFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 384 | 112 |
| Pixel fill rate | 25.50 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 38.26 GTexel/s | 33.6 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 10 Watt | 105 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1800 million | 754 million |
| CUDA cores | 112 | |
| Floating-point performance | 336.0 gflops | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, HDTVDual Link DVI |
| Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |
| Width | IGP | |
| Length | 9" (22.9 cm) | |
| SLI options | 2-way | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 10.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 57.6 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz (6008 MHz effective) | 900 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce MX330 with others
NVIDIAGeForce MX330 vs
ATIRadeon X300 SE
NVIDIAGeForce MX330 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 6100 + nForce 400
NVIDIAGeForce MX330 vs
NVIDIAGRID K220Q
NVIDIAGeForce MX330 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M1200 Mobile
NVIDIAGeForce MX330 vs
NVIDIAQuadro P520
NVIDIAGeForce MX330 vs
NVIDIAT600
