Quadro K1000M vs GeForce GT 430
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 430 with Quadro K1000M, including specs and performance data.
K1000M outperforms GT 430 by a substantial 30% 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 | 844 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | 0.16 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | N14P-Q1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 11 October 2010 (13 years ago) | 1 June 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | $119.90 |
| Current price | $59 (0.7x MSRP) | $232 (1.9x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
K1000M has 220% better value for money than GT 430.
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 | 192 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 98 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 11.2 billion/sec | 13.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 268.8 gflops | 326.4 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 430 and Quadro K1000M 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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) | 1800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 - 28.8 GB/s | 28.8 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 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| CUDA | + | + |
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.
Quadro K1000M outperforms GeForce GT 430 by 30% 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%
Quadro K1000M outperforms GeForce GT 430 by 30% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
GeForce GT 430 outperforms Quadro K1000M by 33% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
Quadro K1000M outperforms GeForce GT 430 by 67% in Octane Render OctaneBench.
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:
| 900p | 6−7
−50%
| 9
+50%
|
| Full HD | 14−16
−42.9%
| 20
+42.9%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | no data |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | no data |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how GT 430 and K1000M compete in popular games:
- K1000M is 50% faster in 900p
- K1000M is 43% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.55 | 2.02 |
| Recency | 11 October 2010 | 1 June 2012 |
| Cost | $79 | $119.9 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 45 Watt |
The Quadro K1000M 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 Quadro K1000M is a mobile workstation 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.
