GeForce GT 430 vs GTX 680M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680M with GeForce GT 430, including specs and performance data.
GTX 680M outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 440% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 500 | 972 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.23 | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 6.14 | 2.32 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 11 October 2010 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $310.50 | $79 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 680M has 6360% 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 | 1344 | 96 |
| CUDA cores | 1344 | no data |
| CUDA cores per GPU | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 719 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 758 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 84.90 | 11.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.038 TFLOPS | 0.2688 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 112 | 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | 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 | None | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) |
| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 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 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
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.
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 | 67
+458%
| 12−14
−458%
|
| Full HD | 66
+450%
| 12−14
−450%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1275%
|
4−5
−1275%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+213%
|
14−16
−213%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+70.6%
|
30−35
−70.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1275%
|
4−5
−1275%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+213%
|
14−16
−213%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+118%
|
10−12
−118%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+70.6%
|
30−35
−70.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1275%
|
4−5
−1275%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+213%
|
14−16
−213%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+118%
|
10−12
−118%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+70.6%
|
30−35
−70.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+563%
|
8−9
−563%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+520%
|
5−6
−520%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
This is how GTX 680M and GT 430 compete in popular games:
- GTX 680M is 458% faster in 900p
- GTX 680M is 450% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 680M is 1275% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 680M surpassed GT 430 in all 49 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.37 | 1.55 |
| Recency | 4 June 2012 | 11 October 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 49 Watt |
GTX 680M has a 440% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 430, on the other hand, has 104.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 680M 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.
