GeForce GT 430 vs GTX 1660 Ti Mobile

Place in the ranking	197	972
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	100.00	0.05
Power efficiency	24.92	2.20
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	TU116	GF108
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)	11 October 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$229	$79

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 199900% better value for money than GT 430.

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	1536	96
CUDA cores per GPU	no data	96
Core clock speed	1455 MHz	700 MHz
Boost clock speed	1590 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,600 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	49 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	98 °C
Texture fill rate	152.6	11.20
Floating-point processing power	4.884 TFLOPS	0.2688 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	4
TMUs	96	16

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	medium sized	no data
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0 x 16
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Height	no data	2.713" (6.9 cm)
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	GDDR6	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate)
Memory bandwidth	288.0 GB/s	25.6 - 28.8 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	No outputs	HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.2
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	7.5	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark 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 1660 Ti Mobile 28.91
+1753%

GT 430 1.56

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.

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile 14818
+1958%

GT 430 720

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	89 +2125%	4−5 −2125%
1440p	57 +1800%	3−4 −1800%
4K	36 +3500%	1−2 −3500%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.57 +668%	19.75 −668%
1440p	4.02 +555%	26.33 −555%
4K	6.36 +1142%	79.00 −1142%

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 668% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 555% lower cost per frame in 1440p
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 1142% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	63 +800%	7−8 −800%
Cyberpunk 2077	86 +1620%	5−6 −1620%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	89 +4350%	2−3 −4350%
Counter-Strike 2	57 +714%	7−8 −714%
Cyberpunk 2077	63 +1160%	5−6 −1160%
Forza Horizon 4	147 +1370%	10−11 −1370%
Forza Horizon 5	69 +2200%	3−4 −2200%
Metro Exodus	88 +8700%	1−2 −8700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	99 +1314%	7−8 −1314%
Valorant	148 +2014%	7−8 −2014%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	112 +5500%	2−3 −5500%
Counter-Strike 2	49 +600%	7−8 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	50 +900%	5−6 −900%
Dota 2	111 +5450%	2−3 −5450%
Far Cry 5	75 +582%	10−12 −582%
Fortnite	130−140 +1886%	7−8 −1886%
Forza Horizon 4	118 +1080%	10−11 −1080%
Forza Horizon 5	60 +1900%	3−4 −1900%
Grand Theft Auto V	105 +5150%	2−3 −5150%
Metro Exodus	63 +6200%	1−2 −6200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	232 +1350%	16−18 −1350%
Red Dead Redemption 2	41 +486%	7−8 −486%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	95−100 +1100%	8−9 −1100%
Valorant	71 +2267%	3−4 −2267%
World of Tanks	270−280 +747%	30−35 −747%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	78 +3800%	2−3 −3800%
Counter-Strike 2	42 +500%	7−8 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	45 +800%	5−6 −800%
Dota 2	116 +5700%	2−3 −5700%
Far Cry 5	119 +982%	10−12 −982%
Forza Horizon 4	101 +910%	10−11 −910%
Forza Horizon 5	50 +2400%	2−3 −2400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +975%	16−18 −975%
Valorant	125 +1983%	6−7 −1983%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	50−55 +2400%	2−3 −2400%
Grand Theft Auto V	50−55 +2450%	2−3 −2450%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +1650%	10−11 −1650%
Red Dead Redemption 2	26	0−1
World of Tanks	180−190 +1989%	9−10 −1989%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55 +2650%	2−3 −2650%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	25 +733%	3−4 −733%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +1660%	5−6 −1660%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +1875%	4−5 −1875%
Forza Horizon 5	42 +4100%	1−2 −4100%
Metro Exodus	60 +1900%	3−4 −1900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +800%	5−6 −800%
Valorant	81 +1057%	7−8 −1057%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Dota 2	50−55 +225%	16−18 −225%
Grand Theft Auto V	50−55 +247%	14−16 −247%
Metro Exodus	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90 +2150%	4−5 −2150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	17 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +247%	14−16 −247%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 +400%	2−3 −400%
Dota 2	85 +431%	16−18 −431%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +3800%	1−2 −3800%
Fortnite	37 +3600%	1−2 −3600%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +2150%	2−3 −2150%
Forza Horizon 5	22 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Valorant	39 +1850%	2−3 −1850%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and GT 430 compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 2125% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 1800% faster in 1440p
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 3500% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 8700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is ahead in 45 tests (98%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	28.91	1.56
Recency	23 April 2019	11 October 2010
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	49 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has a 1753.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

GT 430, on the other hand, has 63.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is a notebook card while GeForce GT 430 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.