Radeon HD 6450M vs GeForce GT 430
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 430 with Radeon HD 6450M, including specs and performance data.
GT 430 outperforms HD 6450M by a whopping 138% 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 | 1038 | 1267 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.25 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | Seymour |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 October 2010 (15 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 160 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 370 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | no data |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 98 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 11.20 | 4.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2688 TFLOPS | 0.192 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 128 KB |
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 support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 - 28.8 GB/s | 12.8 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 |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 18−20
+125%
| 8
−125%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.39 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+25%
|
27−30
−25%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+68.4%
|
18−20
−68.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+25%
|
27−30
−25%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+25%
|
27−30
−25%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how GT 430 and HD 6450M compete in popular games:
- GT 430 is 125% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 430 is 233% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 430 performs better in 25 tests (89%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (11%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.43 | 0.60 |
| Recency | 11 October 2010 | 4 January 2011 |
GT 430 has a 138% higher aggregate performance score.
HD 6450M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months.
The GeForce GT 430 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6450M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 430 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon HD 6450M 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.
