GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile vs GT 430
Aggregate performance score
RTX 3050 Mobile outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 1424% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 928 | 216 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 44 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Ampere (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | Ampere GA106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 October 2010 (13 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | no data |
| Current price | $59 (0.7x MSRP) | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
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 cores | 96 | 2560 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 1552 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1777 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 98 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 11.2 billion/sec | 102.0 |
| Floating-point performance | 268.8 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 430 and GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 5.7" (14.5 cm) | no data |
| Height | 2.713" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 - 28.8 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 Connectors | HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
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.
RTX 3050 Mobile outperforms GT 430 by 1424% based on our aggregate 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%
RTX 3050 Mobile outperforms GT 430 by 1420% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
RTX 3050 Mobile outperforms GT 430 by 2078% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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 | 6−7
−1450%
| 93
+1450%
|
| 1440p | 3−4
−1667%
| 53
+1667%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−1450%
| 31
+1450%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2550%
|
106
+2550%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−860%
|
45−50
+860%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1975%
|
83
+1975%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−1450%
|
60−65
+1450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2500%
|
100−110
+2500%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−1075%
|
45−50
+1075%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−1280%
|
207
+1280%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−2000%
|
60−65
+2000%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−1633%
|
156
+1633%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−608%
|
85
+608%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−860%
|
45−50
+860%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1425%
|
61
+1425%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−1450%
|
60−65
+1450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2500%
|
100−110
+2500%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−775%
|
35
+775%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−520%
|
90−95
+520%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−2000%
|
60−65
+2000%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−1267%
|
123
+1267%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−3260%
|
168
+3260%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−467%
|
65−70
+467%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−860%
|
45−50
+860%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1425%
|
61
+1425%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2500%
|
100−110
+2500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−613%
|
107
+613%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−1078%
|
106
+1078%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1200%
|
65
+1200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−492%
|
71
+492%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−2000%
|
60−65
+2000%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−4800%
|
45−50
+4800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−700%
|
30−35
+700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30
+2900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3300%
|
68
+3300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−4600%
|
45−50
+4600%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−300%
|
27−30
+300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−1460%
|
78
+1460%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−2800%
|
27−30
+2800%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−875%
|
35−40
+875%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 24 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−4300%
|
44
+4300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−825%
|
37
+825%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−567%
|
20−22
+567%
|
This is how GT 430 and RTX 3050 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 Mobile is 1450% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 Mobile is 1667% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 Mobile is 1450% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3050 Mobile is 4800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 3050 Mobile surpassed GT 430 in all 51 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.55 | 23.62 |
| Recency | 11 October 2010 | 4 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 130 Watt |
The GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 430 is a desktop card while GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
