GeForce GT 430 vs GTX 285M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 285M SLI with GeForce GT 430, including specs and performance data.
GTX 285M SLI outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 172% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 645 | 928 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.71 | 0.05 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GTX | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 11 October 2010 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79 |
| Current price | $149 | $59 (0.7x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 285M SLI has 3320% 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 | 256 | 96 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 11.2 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 268.8 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 285M SLI and GeForce GT 430 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 5.7" (14.5 cm) |
| Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-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 | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1020 MHz | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | no data | HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | no data | 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 | 54
+200%
| 18−20
−200%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
This is how GTX 285M SLI and GT 430 compete in popular games:
- GTX 285M SLI is 200% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.21 | 1.55 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 11 October 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 49 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 285M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 285M SLI 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
