GT 230 vs GT 430

#ad
Buy
VS
#ad
Buy
OEM

Combined performance score

GT 430
1.55
+86.7%

GT 430 outperforms GT 230 by 87% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking9241097
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money0.050.01
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGF108G94B
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date11 October 2010 (13 years old)12 October 2009 (14 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$79 $43.99
Current price$59 (0.7x MSRP)$123 (2.8x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 430 has 400% better value for money than GT 230.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores9648
CUDA cores per GPU96no data
Core clock speed700 MHz650 MHz
Number of transistors585 million505 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)49 Watt75 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature98 °Cno data
Texture fill rate11.2 billion/sec15.60
Floating-point performance268.8 gflops156 gflops

Size and 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 supportPCI-E 2.0 x 16no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length5.7" (14.5 cm)no data
Height2.713" (6.9 cm)no data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

Memory

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 amount1 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate)1800 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 - 28.8 GB/s57.6 GB/s

Video outputs and ports

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 ConnectorsHDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVINo outputs
HDMI+no data
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.23.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+1.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 430 1.55
+86.7%
GT 230 0.83

GT 430 outperforms GT 230 by 87% in our combined benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GT 430 601
+86.1%
GT 230 323

GT 430 outperforms GT 230 by 86% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Hitman 3 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 1.55 0.83
Recency 11 October 2010 12 October 2009
Cost $79 $43.99
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 49 Watt 75 Watt

The GeForce GT 430 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 230 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

User ratings

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


NVIDIA GeForce GT 430
GeForce GT 430
NVIDIA GeForce GT 230
GeForce GT 230

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User ratings: view and submit

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


3.3 954 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 52 votes

Rate NVIDIA GeForce GT 230 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.