GeForce GT 220 vs GT 430

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 430 and GeForce GT 220, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 430
2010
1 GB GDDR3, 49 Watt
1.56
+174%

GT 430 outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 174% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9721215
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.05no data
Power efficiency2.200.68
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGF108GT216
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date11 October 2010 (14 years ago)12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$79 $79.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 430 and GT 220 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores9648
CUDA cores per GPU96no data
Core clock speed700 MHz625 MHz
Number of transistors585 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)49 Watt58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature98 °C105 °C
Texture fill rate11.209.840
Floating-point processing power0.2688 TFLOPS0.1277 TFLOPS
ROPs48
TMUs1616

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 16PCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length145 mm168 mm
Height2.713" (6.9 cm)4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width1-slot1-slot
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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate)790 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 - 28.8 GB/s25.3 GB/s

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 DVIVGADVIHDMI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x15362048x1536
Audio input for HDMIInternalS/PDIF + HDA

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.23.1
OpenCL1.11.1
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
+174%
GT 220 0.57

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 430 601
+174%
GT 220 219

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 HD55−60
+162%
21
−162%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.44
+165%
3.81
−165%
  • GT 430 has 165% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Dota 2 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Fortnite 7−8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
World of Tanks 30−35
+88.2%
16−18
−88.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Dota 2 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
World of Tanks 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Valorant 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how GT 430 and GT 220 compete in popular games:

  • GT 430 is 162% faster in 1080p

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

  • in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 430 is 800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 430 is ahead in 27 tests (82%)
  • there's a draw in 6 tests (18%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.56 0.57
Recency 11 October 2010 12 October 2009
Power consumption (TDP) 49 Watt 58 Watt

GT 430 has a 173.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, and 18.4% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 430 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.


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 GT 220
GeForce GT 220

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 1140 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 797 votes

Rate GeForce GT 220 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.