GeForce 9200M vs GT 430

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 430 with GeForce 9200M, including specs and performance data.

GT 430
2010
1 GB GDDR3, 49 Watt
1.56
+322%

GT 430 outperforms 9200M by a whopping 322% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9701271
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.05no data
Power efficiency2.182.12
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGF108C79
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date11 October 2010 (14 years ago)15 October 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$79 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores9616
CUDA cores per GPU96no data
Core clock speed700 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors585 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)49 Watt12 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature98 °Cno data
Texture fill rate11.203.600
Floating-point processing power0.2688 TFLOPS0.0384 TFLOPS
ROPs44
TMUs168

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 supportPCI-E 2.0 x 16no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length145 mmno data
Height2.713" (6.9 cm)no data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate)System Shared
Memory bandwidth25.6 - 28.8 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsHDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVINo outputs
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.23.3
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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 1.56
+322%
GeForce 9200M 0.37

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.

GT 430 600
+320%
GeForce 9200M 143

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

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+325%
8−9
−325%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+325%
8−9
−325%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+325%
8−9
−325%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.56 0.37
Recency 11 October 2010 15 October 2008
Chip lithography 40 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 49 Watt 12 Watt

GT 430 has a 321.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 9200M, on the other hand, has 308.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 430 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9200M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 430 is a desktop card while GeForce 9200M is a notebook one.


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

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 GT 430
GeForce GT 430
NVIDIA GeForce 9200M
GeForce 9200M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 1129 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.5 2 votes

Rate GeForce 9200M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

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