GeForce GT 430 vs Radeon RX Vega 5
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 5 with GeForce GT 430, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 5 outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 199% 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 | 730 | 1051 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 22.07 | 2.26 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Vega | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (6 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 | 320 | 96 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1400 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 11.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.2688 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 |
| Interface | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 data | 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_1 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
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 | 19
+217%
| 6−7
−217%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 13.17 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 43 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 11 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 29 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 52
+940%
|
5−6
−940%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+64.7%
|
30−35
−64.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50
+56.3%
|
30−35
−56.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 39
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Fortnite | 21
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+64.7%
|
30−35
−64.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 37
+106%
|
18−20
−106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+64.7%
|
30−35
−64.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+127%
|
14−16
−127%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+500%
|
7−8
−500%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how RX Vega 5 and GT 430 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 5 is 217% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 5 is 1200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX Vega 5 surpassed GT 430 in all 47 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.28 | 1.43 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 11 October 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 49 Watt |
RX Vega 5 has a 199% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 471% more advanced lithography process, and 227% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 5 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 5 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.
