GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile vs GT 430
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 430 with GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2060 Mobile outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 1811% 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 | 1015 | 230 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.24 | 18.22 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | TU106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 October 2010 (14 years ago) | 29 January 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1920 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 960 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 10,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 115 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 98 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 11.20 | 144.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2688 TFLOPS | 4.608 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 48 |
| TMUs | 16 | 120 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 240 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 30 |
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 size | no data | large |
| 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 | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 - 28.8 GB/s | 336.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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 HD | 5−6
−1980%
| 104
+1980%
|
| 1440p | 3−4
−2100%
| 66
+2100%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−1950%
| 41
+1950%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 15.80 | no data |
| 1440p | 26.33 | no data |
| 4K | 39.50 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1967%
|
60−65
+1967%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−933%
|
60−65
+933%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−5100%
|
104
+5100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1967%
|
60−65
+1967%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−3100%
|
96
+3100%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−3140%
|
162
+3140%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−1250%
|
108
+1250%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−8700%
|
85−90
+8700%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−933%
|
60−65
+933%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1610%
|
171
+1610%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−556%
|
223
+556%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−5100%
|
104
+5100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−744%
|
270−280
+744%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1967%
|
60−65
+1967%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−556%
|
118
+556%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−2933%
|
91
+2933%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−2780%
|
144
+2780%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−1238%
|
107
+1238%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−8700%
|
85−90
+8700%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−933%
|
60−65
+933%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−4400%
|
90
+4400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−2700%
|
56
+2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1370%
|
147
+1370%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1486%
|
111
+1486%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−476%
|
196
+476%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−4800%
|
98
+4800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1967%
|
60−65
+1967%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−522%
|
112
+522%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−2700%
|
84
+2700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−1000%
|
88
+1000%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−933%
|
60−65
+933%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1020%
|
112
+1020%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−757%
|
60
+757%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−262%
|
123
+262%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−2160%
|
113
+2160%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−1475%
|
60−65
+1475%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−1860%
|
190−200
+1860%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1067%
|
170−180
+1067%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−2929%
|
212
+2929%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 27−30 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−6200%
|
63
+6200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1750%
|
70−75
+1750%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−4700%
|
45−50
+4700%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3600%
|
74
+3600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−260%
|
50−55
+260%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−2343%
|
171
+2343%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−4250%
|
87
+4250%
|
| God of War | 1−2
−2200%
|
21−24
+2200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1800%
|
38
+1800%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1600%
|
34
+1600%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
This is how GT 430 and RTX 2060 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 2060 Mobile is 1980% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2060 Mobile is 2100% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2060 Mobile is 1950% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 2060 Mobile is 8700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 2060 Mobile performs better in 49 tests (77%)
- there's a draw in 15 tests (23%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.44 | 27.52 |
| Recency | 11 October 2010 | 29 January 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 115 Watt |
GT 430 has 134.7% lower power consumption.
RTX 2060 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 1811.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile 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 GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
