GRID M6-8Q vs GeForce GT 430
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 430 with GRID M6-8Q, including specs and performance data.
M6-8Q outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 493% 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 | 1031 | 535 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.25 | 6.55 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | GM204 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 11 October 2010 (15 years ago) | 30 August 2015 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 cores | 96 | 1536 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 722 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 5,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 98 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 11.20 | 69.31 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2688 TFLOPS | 2.218 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 96 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 576 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 2 MB |
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-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Height | 2.713" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | MXM Module |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 - 28.8 GB/s | 160.4 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 | HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 5.2 |
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−440%
|
27−30
+440%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−450%
|
55−60
+450%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−471%
|
200−210
+471%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−463%
|
180−190
+463%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−456%
|
100−105
+456%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−440%
|
27−30
+440%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−450%
|
55−60
+450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−471%
|
200−210
+471%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−456%
|
100−105
+456%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−450%
|
55−60
+450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−471%
|
200−210
+471%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−440%
|
27−30
+440%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−450%
|
55−60
+450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−467%
|
85−90
+467%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−471%
|
80−85
+471%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.42 | 8.42 |
| Recency | 11 October 2010 | 30 August 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 100 Watt |
GT 430 has 104.1% lower power consumption.
GRID M6-8Q, on the other hand, has a 493% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The GRID M6-8Q is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 430 is a desktop graphics card while GRID M6-8Q is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
