GeForce GT 430 vs 8800M GTX SLI

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 8800M GTX SLI with GeForce GT 430, including specs and performance data.

8800M GTX SLI
2007
512 MB GDDR3, 130 Watt
2.06
+32.9%

8800M GTX SLI outperforms GT 430 by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking889978
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.05
Power efficiency1.092.18
ArchitectureG9x (2007−2010)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameNB8E-GTXGF108
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date19 November 2007 (17 years ago)11 October 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$79

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores19296
CUDA cores per GPUno data96
Core clock speed500 MHz700 MHz
Number of transistors1508 Million585 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt49 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data98 °C
Texture fill rateno data11.20
Floating-point processing powerno data0.2688 TFLOPS
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data16

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0 x 16
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Heightno data2.713" (6.9 cm)
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate)
Memory bandwidthno data25.6 - 28.8 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectorsno dataHDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1012 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.2
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-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 Preset

Atomic Heart 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Battlefield 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Fortnite 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Valorant 35−40
+11.4%
35−40
−11.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Battlefield 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 40−45
+25%
30−35
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Dota 2 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Fortnite 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Valorant 35−40
+11.4%
35−40
−11.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Dota 2 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Valorant 35−40
+11.4%
35−40
−11.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Valorant 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the 8800M GTX SLI is 150% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • 8800M GTX SLI is ahead in 42 tests (81%)
  • there's a draw in 10 tests (19%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.06 1.55
Recency 19 November 2007 11 October 2010
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 1 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 49 Watt

8800M GTX SLI has a 32.9% higher aggregate performance score.

GT 430, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 165.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 8800M GTX SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 8800M GTX SLI is a notebook card while GeForce GT 430 is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 8800M GTX SLI
GeForce 8800M GTX SLI
NVIDIA GeForce GT 430
GeForce GT 430

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3 3 votes

Rate GeForce 8800M GTX SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 1147 votes

Rate GeForce GT 430 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 8800M GTX SLI or GeForce GT 430, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.