GeForce GT 430 vs GTX 1050
Aggregate performance score
GTX 1050 outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 743% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 362 | 928 |
| Place by popularity | 15 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.83 | 0.05 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | N17P-G1 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 October 2016 (7 years ago) | 11 October 2010 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | $79 |
| Current price | $211 (1.9x MSRP) | $59 (0.7x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1050 has 7560% 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 | 640 | 96 |
| CUDA cores | 640 | no data |
| CUDA cores per GPU | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1290 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1392 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 58.20 | 11.2 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 1,862 gflops | 268.8 gflops |
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 | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 5.7" (14.5 cm) | 5.7" (14.5 cm) |
| Height | 4.38" (11.1 cm) | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 300 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| SLI options | - | no data |
| SLI | - | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 25.6 - 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 | DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | 2.2 | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | no data |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
GTX 1050 outperforms GT 430 by 743% 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%
GTX 1050 outperforms GT 430 by 741% in Passmark.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GTX 1050 outperforms GT 430 by 844% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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%
GTX 1050 outperforms GT 430 by 651% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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 | 48
+860%
| 5−6
−860%
|
| 1440p | 24
+1100%
| 2−3
−1100%
|
| 4K | 23
+1050%
| 2−3
−1050%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 38
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 43
+760%
|
5−6
−760%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+1475%
|
4−5
−1475%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 62
+313%
|
14−16
−313%
|
| Metro Exodus | 46
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 53
+489%
|
9−10
−489%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+267%
|
12−14
−267%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 26
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+1475%
|
4−5
−1475%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
+253%
|
14−16
−253%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+660%
|
5−6
−660%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+267%
|
12−14
−267%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 15
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 34
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 26
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 31
+244%
|
9−10
−244%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+267%
|
12−14
−267%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Metro Exodus | 25
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
This is how GTX 1050 and GT 430 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 is 860% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1050 is 1100% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1050 is 1050% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1050 is 2400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1050 surpassed GT 430 in all 51 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.06 | 1.55 |
| Recency | 25 October 2016 | 11 October 2010 |
| Cost | $109 | $79 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 49 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1050 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.
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.
