GeForce GT 230 vs GTX 780
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 780 and GeForce GT 230, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 780 outperforms GT 230 by a whopping 2354% 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 | 326 | 1227 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.25 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 5.92 | 0.80 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GK110 | G94B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 May 2013 (13 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $43.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 780 has 42400% better value for money than GT 230.
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 | 2304 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 863 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 173.2 | 15.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.156 TFLOPS | 0.156 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 192 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 64 KB |
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 Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Minimum recommended system power | 600 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 57.6 GB/s |
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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| 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.
| Blu Ray 3D | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| PhysX | + | - |
| 3D Vision Live | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 (5.1) | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.1 |
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.
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 | 54
+2600%
| 2−3
−2600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 12.02
+83%
| 22.00
−83%
|
- GTX 780 has 83% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.14 | 0.78 |
| Recency | 23 May 2013 | 12 October 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 780 has a 2354% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96% more advanced lithography process.
GT 230, on the other hand, has 233% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 780 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 230 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.
