GeForce GT 430 vs Radeon HD 7770M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7770M with GeForce GT 430, including specs and performance data.
HD 7770M outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 123% 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 | 809 | 1051 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 7.71 | 2.26 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Chelsea | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 24 April 2012 (14 years ago) | 11 October 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 512 | 96 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 675 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 32 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 11.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 0.2688 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 128 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 25.6 - 28.8 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 | No outputs | HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 4−5 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+41.2%
|
30−35
−41.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+84.4%
|
30−35
−84.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+41.2%
|
30−35
−41.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+41.2%
|
30−35
−41.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+86.7%
|
14−16
−86.7%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+314%
|
7−8
−314%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 7770M is 800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 7770M performs better in 46 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.19 | 1.43 |
| Recency | 24 April 2012 | 11 October 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 32 Watt | 49 Watt |
HD 7770M has a 123% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 53% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7770M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7770M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GT 430 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
