GeForce RTX 2080 Super vs GT 430
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 430 and GeForce RTX 2080 Super, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 2080 Super outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 3155% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1055 | 86 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | 23.46 |
| Power efficiency | 2.26 | 14.41 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | TU104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 11 October 2010 (15 years ago) | 23 July 2019 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | $699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 2080 Super has 46820% better value for money than GT 430.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 3072 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 1650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1815 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 98 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 11.20 | 348.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2688 TFLOPS | 11.15 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 4 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 2.713" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) | 1937 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 - 28.8 GB/s | 495.9 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 4−5
−3350%
| 138
+3350%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−4500%
| 92
+4500%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−3400%
| 70
+3400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 19.75
−290%
| 5.07
+290%
|
| 1440p | 39.50
−420%
| 7.60
+420%
|
| 4K | 39.50
−296%
| 9.99
+296%
|
- RTX 2080 Super has 290% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 2080 Super has 420% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 2080 Super has 296% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−3525%
|
140−150
+3525%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 250−260 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3633%
|
110−120
+3633%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−3525%
|
140−150
+3525%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−6000%
|
122
+6000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 250−260 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3633%
|
110−120
+3633%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−3533%
|
109
+3533%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−4960%
|
253
+4960%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−1688%
|
143
+1688%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−7200%
|
140−150
+7200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1630%
|
173
+1630%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−736%
|
301
+736%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−3525%
|
140−150
+3525%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−5400%
|
110
+5400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 250−260 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−769%
|
270−280
+769%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3633%
|
110−120
+3633%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−667%
|
138
+667%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−3400%
|
105
+3400%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−3600%
|
185
+3600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−1675%
|
142
+1675%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−7200%
|
140−150
+7200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−11200%
|
113
+11200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−4550%
|
93
+4550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1580%
|
168
+1580%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−2686%
|
195
+2686%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−686%
|
283
+686%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−6450%
|
131
+6450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2867%
|
89
+2867%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−617%
|
129
+617%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−3433%
|
106
+3433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−1563%
|
133
+1563%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1490%
|
159
+1490%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1457%
|
109
+1457%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−503%
|
217
+503%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−3500%
|
180
+3500%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−3075%
|
120−130
+3075%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−3250%
|
300−350
+3250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1067%
|
170−180
+1067%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−2630%
|
273
+2630%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 57 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−9900%
|
100
+9900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3800%
|
117
+3800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−4800%
|
95−100
+4800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−6250%
|
127
+6250%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 35−40 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−667%
|
115
+667%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−3175%
|
262
+3175%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−5700%
|
116
+5700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−3300%
|
68
+3300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3100%
|
64
+3100%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 108
+0%
|
108
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
This is how GT 430 and RTX 2080 Super compete in popular games:
- RTX 2080 Super is 3350% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2080 Super is 4500% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2080 Super is 3400% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 2080 Super is 11200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 2080 Super performs better in 47 tests (81%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (19%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.43 | 46.55 |
| Recency | 11 October 2010 | 23 July 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 250 Watt |
GT 430 has 410% lower power consumption.
RTX 2080 Super, on the other hand, has a 3155% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 2080 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
