GeForce GT 430 vs GTX 560 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 560 Ti and GeForce GT 430, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 560 Ti outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 410% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 530 | 980 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.82 | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 3.21 | 2.18 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 11 October 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | $79 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 560 Ti has 3540% 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 | 384 | 96 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 823 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 52.67 | 11.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.263 TFLOPS | 0.2688 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 64 | 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1002 MHz | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.3 GB/s | 25.6 - 28.8 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI | HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.1 | + |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
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.
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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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:
| 900p | 63
+425%
| 12−14
−425%
|
| Full HD | 65
+442%
| 12−14
−442%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.83
+71.9%
| 6.58
−71.9%
|
- GTX 560 Ti has 72% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+313%
|
8−9
−313%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+123%
|
35−40
−123%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+272%
|
30−35
−272%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+217%
|
18−20
−217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+313%
|
8−9
−313%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+123%
|
35−40
−123%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+217%
|
18−20
−217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+313%
|
8−9
−313%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+123%
|
35−40
−123%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+533%
|
9−10
−533%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+963%
|
8−9
−963%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+20%
|
14−16
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
This is how GTX 560 Ti and GT 430 compete in popular games:
- GTX 560 Ti is 425% faster in 900p
- GTX 560 Ti is 442% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 560 Ti is 1500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 560 Ti surpassed GT 430 in all 49 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.86 | 1.54 |
| Recency | 25 January 2011 | 11 October 2010 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 49 Watt |
GTX 560 Ti has a 410.4% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 3 months.
GT 430, on the other hand, has 246.9% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 560 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
