ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5430 vs GeForce GT 710
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 710 with Mobility Radeon HD 5430, including specs and performance data.
GT 710 outperforms ATI Mobility HD 5430 by a whopping 394% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 958 | 1304 |
| Place by popularity | 72 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.92 | 3.25 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | Park |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $34.99 | 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 | 192 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 7 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 15.26 | 4.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3663 TFLOPS | 0.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 | 8 |
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 Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x8 | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1.8 GB/s | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s |
| 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 | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 3 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| 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.
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| PureVideo | + | - |
| PhysX | + | - |
API compatibility
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 | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 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 | 8
+700%
| 1−2
−700%
|
| 1440p | 4 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 6
+500%
| 1−2
−500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.37 | no data |
| 1440p | 8.75 | no data |
| 4K | 5.83 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Elden Ring | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Elden Ring | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| World of Tanks | 30−35
+154%
|
12−14
−154%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
−114%
|
14−16
+114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
This is how GT 710 and ATI Mobility HD 5430 compete in popular games:
- GT 710 is 700% faster in 1080p
- GT 710 is 500% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 710 is 400% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI Mobility HD 5430 is 114% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 710 is ahead in 24 tests (75%)
- ATI Mobility HD 5430 is ahead in 1 test (3%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (22%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.63 | 0.33 |
| Recency | 27 March 2014 | 7 January 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 7 Watt |
GT 710 has a 393.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
ATI Mobility HD 5430, on the other hand, has 171.4% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 710 is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 5430 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 710 is a desktop card while Mobility Radeon HD 5430 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
