Quadro T2000 Mobile vs GeForce GT 430
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 430 with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T2000 Mobile outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 1235% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 934 | 254 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | N19P-Q3 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 11 October 2010 (13 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | 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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 1575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 11.20 | 114.2 |
| Floating-point performance | 268.8 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 430 and Quadro T2000 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 | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 128.0 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 7.5 |
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.
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.
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
−725%
|
30−35
+725%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−667%
|
45−50
+667%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−740%
|
40−45
+740%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−725%
|
30−35
+725%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2300%
|
45−50
+2300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−3075%
|
120−130
+3075%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−583%
|
40−45
+583%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−560%
|
95−100
+560%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−667%
|
65−70
+667%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−174%
|
90−95
+174%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−667%
|
45−50
+667%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−740%
|
40−45
+740%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−725%
|
30−35
+725%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2300%
|
45−50
+2300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−3075%
|
120−130
+3075%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−583%
|
40−45
+583%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−560%
|
95−100
+560%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−667%
|
65−70
+667%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−318%
|
45−50
+318%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−174%
|
90−95
+174%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−667%
|
45−50
+667%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−740%
|
40−45
+740%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−725%
|
30−35
+725%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2300%
|
45−50
+2300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−3075%
|
120−130
+3075%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−583%
|
40−45
+583%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−560%
|
95−100
+560%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−667%
|
65−70
+667%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−318%
|
45−50
+318%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−174%
|
90−95
+174%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−1500%
|
30−35
+1500%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 21−24 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1100%
|
24−27
+1100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−740%
|
40−45
+740%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9
−1413%
|
120−130
+1413%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−750%
|
30−35
+750%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 3075% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T2000 Mobile is ahead in 49 tests (71%)
- there's a draw in 20 tests (29%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.55 | 20.69 |
| Recency | 11 October 2010 | 27 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 60 Watt |
GT 430 has 22.4% lower power consumption.
T2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 1234.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T2000 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 Quadro T2000 Mobile 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.
