Radeon HD 6680G2 vs GeForce GT 430
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 430 with Radeon HD 6680G2, including specs and performance data.
GT 430 outperforms HD 6680G2 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 966 | 1000 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | no data |
Power efficiency | 2.19 | no data |
Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) |
GPU code name | GF108 | no data |
Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
Release date | 11 October 2010 (14 years ago) | 14 June 2011 (13 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 800 |
CUDA cores per GPU | 96 | no data |
Core clock speed | 700 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | 585 million | no data |
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 | no data |
Floating-point processing power | 0.2688 TFLOPS | no data |
ROPs | 4 | no data |
TMUs | 16 | no data |
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 | medium sized |
Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
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 | no data |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | no data |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
Memory clock speed | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) | no data |
Memory bandwidth | 25.6 - 28.8 GB/s | no data |
Shared memory | - | - |
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 data |
HDMI | + | - |
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11 |
Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
OpenGL | 4.2 | no data |
OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
Vulkan | 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+3%
|
30−35
−3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+3%
|
30−35
−3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+3%
|
30−35
−3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 430 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 430 is ahead in 21 test (43%)
- there's a draw in 28 tests (57%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 1.55 | 1.41 |
Recency | 11 October 2010 | 14 June 2011 |
GT 430 has a 9.9% higher aggregate performance score.
HD 6680G2, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 430 and Radeon HD 6680G2.
Be aware that GeForce GT 430 is a desktop card while Radeon HD 6680G2 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.