
GeForce MX330 vs GeForce GTX 1650

GeForce MX330
Popular choices:

GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The GeForce MX330 is positioned at rank #293 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce MX330
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 234.9% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce MX330.
| Insight | GeForce MX330 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-234.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+234.9%) |
| Longevity | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $100 for the GeForce MX330, it costs 25% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 346.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce MX330 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+346.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) | ✅More affordable ($75) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce MX330 and GeForce GTX 1650

GeForce MX330
The GeForce MX330 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 10 2020. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1531 MHz to 1594 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,350 points.

GeForce GTX 1650
The GeForce GTX 1650 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1485 MHz to 1665 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,869 points. Launch price was $149.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce MX330 scores 2,350 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 234.9%. The GeForce MX330 is built on Pascal while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 14 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce MX330) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 1.224 TFLOPS (GeForce MX330) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1594 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce MX330 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,350 | 7,869+235% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 896+133% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.224 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+144% |
| Boost Clock | 1594 MHz | 1665 MHz+4% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 56+133% |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | 896 KB+522% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce MX330 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce MX330 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 48 GB/s (GeForce MX330) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 166.7% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce MX330) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce MX330 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 128 GB/s+167% |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce MX330) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce MX330 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 3+50% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Pascal (GeForce MX330) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP8 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce MX330) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | GeForce MX330 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Pascal | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP8 | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce MX330 draws 10W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 152.9% difference. The GeForce MX330 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce MX330) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: Mobile vs None.
| Feature | GeForce MX330 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-87% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | Mobile | None |
| Length | — | 229mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 235.0+124% | 104.9 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce MX330 launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $100, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 25% less ($25 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 23.5 (GeForce MX330) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 346.4% better value. The GeForce MX330 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce MX330 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150 | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $100 | $75-25% |
| Performance per Dollar | 23.5 | 104.9+346% |
| Codename | GP108 | TU117 |
| Release | February 10 2020 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #647 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












