Thursday, February 13th 2020

NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and MX330 Surface, Pascal Based Entry mGPUs

NVIDIA's GeForce MX-series mobile GPU line exists so notebook manufacturers can put the NVIDIA logo on their products and boast of gaming capabilities. The company is giving finishing touches to its new GeForce MX330 and MX350 chips, based on the "Pascal" architecture. The MX330 is the company's second rebrand of the MX150 that's based on the 14 nm "GP108" silicon. It's equipped with 384 CUDA cores, and up to 2 GB of GDDR5 memory across a 64-bit wide memory interface. NVIDIA increased the clock speeds to 1531 MHz base, and 1594 MHz GPU Boost (compared to 1227/1468 MHz of the MX150), while remaining in the 25 W TDP envelope.

The MX350, on the other hand, is based on the 14 nm "GP107" silicon, is equipped with 640 CUDA cores, and 2 GB of GDDR5 memory across the same 64-bit bus width as the MX330; but has aggressive power-management that lends it a TDP of just 20 W, despite 66% more CUDA cores than the MX330. Both chips are easily capable of handling non-gaming tasks on typical 1080p / 1440p notebooks; but can game only at 720p thru 1080p, with low-to-mid settings.
Source: NotebookCheck
Add your own comment

31 Comments on NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and MX330 Surface, Pascal Based Entry mGPUs

#1
Chloe Price
So MX 330 is like GT 1030 once again and MX 350 is a GTX 1050 with 64-bit 2GB VRAM.
Posted on Reply
#2
Flanker
NVIDIA's GeForce MX-series mobile GPU line exists so notebook manufacturers can put the NVIDIA logo on their products and boast of gaming capabilities.
Never thought of it that way, but makes sense lol
Posted on Reply
#3
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
"Both chips are capable of handling 1080p thru 1440p displays at non-gaming tasks"

What does this mean? No 4K output?
Posted on Reply
#4
silentbogo
Frick
What does this mean? No 4K output?
Pretty sure it's just @btarunr being confused, or speaking out of his butt again.
Anything pascal-based features HDMI 2.0 and DP1.4, so 4K@60Hz is supported. Even the old MX150 can do 4K over HDMI or DP (nice and smooth, no jitter or delays).
In regards to gaming - that's also debatable. Pretty sure it can run DOOM 2016, Warframe and lots of other games at FHD Medium/High/Ultra with some minor tweaks.
Posted on Reply
#5
notb
Frick
"Both chips are capable of handling 1080p thru 1440p displays at non-gaming tasks"

What does this mean? No 4K output?
Triple 4K easily.
GT1030 can do 8K, so it may do 4x4K if asked politely (buy I haven't seen a card with more than 3 outputs).
Posted on Reply
#6
bug
Both chips are capable of handling 1080p thru 1440p displays at non-gaming tasks
A rock could handle that in 2020.
Posted on Reply
#7
Chrispy_
Ugh, a 3-year-old MX150 with yet another new label?

The MX350 is going to be a disaster, because it's a rebadged mobile GTX 1050, which was already severely power-constrained in the 35W it was often shoehorned into. In order to run at reference clocks, the mobile GTX1050 requires 53 Watts.

At 20W it might as well just be an MX150.
notb
Triple 4K easily.
GT1030 can do 8K, so it may do 4x4K if asked politely (buy I haven't seen a card with more than 3 outputs).
Gigabyte made a GTX 1050 with four outputs and I used two of them for 8x 1080p projectors at an exhibition. Pretty sure the GP107 and GP108 have the same display block so both the MX350 and MX330 would handle it, given enough actual outputs.
Posted on Reply
#8
QUANTUMPHYSICS
Considering a $999 laptop can be had with a 2060...why go any lower than that?
Posted on Reply
#9
bug
QUANTUMPHYSICS
Considering a $999 laptop can be had with a 2060...why go any lower than that?
That, or you don't actually need a dGPU and go with an AMD APU that's faster anyway. I mean, I'm not even sure these are faster than Intel's IGP. The only thing a weak dGPU has going for it in a laptop is the dedicated VRAM. Otherwise is pretty much pointless.
Posted on Reply
#10
Cheeseball
Not a Potato
QUANTUMPHYSICS
Considering a $999 laptop can be had with a 2060...why go any lower than that?
These are generally aimed at 14" (and below) laptops and ultrabooks.
bug
That, or you don't actually need a dGPU and go with an AMD APU that's faster anyway. I mean, I'm not even sure these are faster than Intel's IGP. The only thing a weak dGPU has going for it in a laptop is the dedicated VRAM. Otherwise is pretty much pointless.
The 940MX/MX 150/MX 250 (25W) are still considerably better than any of the Intel and AMD IGPs (including the APU Vegas) due to being separate and having independent GDDR5 (albeit 64-bit) memory. I would assume the MX330 would be the same and the MX350 would be better.

I can only hope for better IGPs/on-die/near-die that are at 1650/1050 Ti-level at this point. The closest to this was the i7-8809G, but it was in an overpriced NUC and shared with a quad-core Kaby Lake CPU.
Posted on Reply
#11
gamefoo21
Nvidia has a long history of selling old hardware under the MX branding. Nice to see them continue that tradition.

-_-
Posted on Reply
#12
W1zzard
Frick
What does this mean? No 4K output?
The idea way to say this will likely be used for notebooks with 1080p / 1440p displays, let me reword
Posted on Reply
#13
lexluthermiester
btarunr
64-bit bus width
Pathetic! 128bit bare minimum or go home NVidia. Seriously. This is not the 90's.
Posted on Reply
#14
Vayra86
Chloe Price
So MX 330 is like GT 1030 once again and MX 350 is a GTX 1050 with 64-bit 2GB VRAM.
Hehe yeah with the 'minor' caveat that the real performance limitation is the power budget they get in each laptop model.
gamefoo21
Nvidia has a long history of selling old hardware under the MX branding. Nice to see them continue that tradition.

-_-
'It just works' applies here :p Only just...
Posted on Reply
#15
gamefoo21
Vayra86
'It just works' applies here :p Only just...
I feel like these cards are raiding the GPU retirement home, and using bad deaging techniques to make them seem young...

Netflix got inspiration from somewhere... LoL
Posted on Reply
#16
Chloe Price
These can run Crysis, that's more than enough.

Posted on Reply
#17
gamefoo21
Chloe Price
These can run Crysis, that's more than enough.


I actually own Crysis... It's so old even Intel Integrated can run it.

The 1030 is such a pile of junk. Even NV won't let their good drivers support it. Last I looked... LoL
Posted on Reply
#18
Chloe Price
gamefoo21
I actually own Crysis... It's so old even Intel Integrated can run it.

The 1030 is such a pile of junk. Even NV won't let their good drivers support it. Last I looked... LoL
1030 is actually a hella good low-end card. Crysis is still pretty demanding game considering it's from 2007.
Posted on Reply
#19
Vayra86
gamefoo21
I actually own Crysis... It's so old even Intel Integrated can run it.

The 1030 is such a pile of junk. Even NV won't let their good drivers support it. Last I looked... LoL
Have a 1030gt in my HTPC downstairs, just fine for some light gaming really. Does fine passively, too.
Posted on Reply
#20
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
W1zzard
The idea way to say this will likely be used for notebooks with 1080p / 1440p displays, let me reword
Make good word use yes you.
Posted on Reply
#21
Chrispy_
GT1030/MX150 is as good as it gets for the power usage. AMD's new APUs look to be scaled back heavily, so rather than getting the Vega12 and Vega15 on 7nm, we're getting more CPU cores and only half the number of Vega CUs.

As already mentioned here, the big thing about MX150/250/330 is that it uses GDDR5 which helps more than anything else at this level.

AMD's GPU division is a real disappointment of late - The dGPU team has squandered their 7nm advantage with nothing to take the performance crown back, nothing particularly power-efficient, and nothing viable for laptops or silent/passive/low-power dGPU whatsoever.

The iGPU team has thrown away countless opportunities since Llano showed the first potential of the AMD and ATi merger. They're chasing CPU performance in an era where plenty of people are happy with their decade-old Core2 for general web/office/media playback. Ryzen 4800U has four too many cores and 8 too few Vega CUs, IMO.
Posted on Reply
#22
Vayra86
gamefoo21
NV treats it like junk. Though I suspect if I lauded it, you'd say something against that.

I bought a Gigabyte 1030 GT passive, I put it in my parents HP with a 4790. It's definitely better than the HD Intel.

1030 GT with GDDR5 on a 128bit bus is a much better card than the ones on 64bit or those cards with DDR3.

That is a real problem the 1030 can be a decent option all the way to a card that can't get out of it's own way.

That Gigabyte is GDDR5 on a 64 bit bus and it only uses 4 lanes and it is incredibly aggressive about pulling power.



Which 1030 GT?

The 64 bit ones? The 128 bit ones?

The ones with DDR3? The ones with GDDR5?

The passive ones? The active cooled ones?

How much ram do you need they come with 1 to 4GB of ram.

Let's not forget that NV also cut out most of the decoding hardware and almost all of the encoding hardware. The 1030 is capable or not of running Crysis at high and it's capable of barely playing YouTube.

I say this as an owner of one. It can't actually play 4K Netflix because it's only got 2GB of ram
Thanks for the perspective & eye opener there. Sound argument.
I guess my expectations of this card were lower to begin with. If it runs 4K video smoothly, Im good.
Posted on Reply
#23
gamefoo21
Vayra86
Thanks for the perspective & eye opener there. Sound argument.
I guess my expectations of this card were lower to begin with. If it runs 4K video smoothly, Im good.
I hope you know I was trying to be light hearted with how we were disagreeing lately. I should really use more smilies.

Driving a 4K screen for my parents is literally why I got them that 1030. It's a shame that it can't do Netflix HDR but it's half height, and by the time that impacts my parents hopefully it's new computer time for a full height card.
Posted on Reply
#24
Chloe Price
gamefoo21
Which 1030 GT?

The 64 bit ones? The 128 bit ones?

The ones with DDR3? The ones with GDDR5?

The passive ones? The active cooled ones?

How much ram do you need they come with 1 to 4GB of ram.

Let's not forget that NV also cut out most of the decoding hardware and almost all of the encoding hardware. The 1030 is capable or not of running Crysis at high and it's capable of barely playing YouTube.

I say this as an owner of one. It can't actually play 4K Netflix because it's only got 2GB of ram
You don't seem to know much about GT 1030. They come only with 64-bit memory bus and there isn't a DDR3 version, just the crappy DDR4 ones and the better GDDR5 ones. And they all come with 2GB of VRAM.

Mine is an Asus Phoenix one with already pretty good cooling, though I've put an old Accelero Twin Turbo for it since I had it lying around. And it does run many games with low details with 1080p having a good framerate.

Not able to play Youtube is pure BS, no problems at all with a 2600K @ 4.5GHz with 1080p60 videos.
Posted on Reply
#25
gamefoo21
Chloe Price
You don't seem to know much about GT 1030. They come only with 64-bit memory bus and there isn't a DDR3 version, just the crappy DDR4 ones and the better GDDR5 ones. And they all come with 2GB of VRAM.

Mine is an Asus Phoenix one with already pretty good cooling, though I've put an old Accelero Twin Turbo for it since I had it lying around. And it does run many games with low details with 1080p having a good framerate.

Not able to play Youtube is pure BS, no problems at all with a 2600K @ 4.5GHz with 1080p60 videos.
I have to clean up my post seems the 1030 managed to avoid the ram shenanigans of previous x30s

I meant 4K60 Youtube, but yes it does perfectly fine at 1080p.

It's a base model GPU, that isn't exactly stellar though put up against current iGPUs. Against the HD4000 in that 4790, it's about twice as fast. Against a 630 it's kinda ehhh... Especially when you take into account Intel has some really decent video hardware lurking in there.

An RX 560 or 1050 are much better choices if you can afford it.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment