GeForce GT 430 vs MX150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX150 with GeForce GT 430, including specs and performance data.
MX150 outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 277% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 600 | 977 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 40.54 | 2.19 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP108 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 May 2017 (7 years ago) | 11 October 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 937 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 24.91 | 11.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 0.2688 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 24 | 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 | 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 | None | 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 | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | + |
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. 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.
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 | 26
+333%
| 6−7
−333%
|
| 1440p | 28
+300%
| 7−8
−300%
|
| 4K | 20
+300%
| 5−6
−300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 13.17 |
| 1440p | no data | 11.29 |
| 4K | no data | 15.80 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 15
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| Valorant | 24
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+250%
|
12−14
−250%
|
| Fortnite | 29
+314%
|
7−8
−314%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 56
+250%
|
16−18
−250%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Valorant | 17
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| World of Tanks | 87
+172%
|
30−35
−172%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 19
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 43
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 55
+511%
|
9−10
−511%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 30
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
This is how GeForce MX150 and GT 430 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX150 is 333% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX150 is 300% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX150 is 300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX150 is 3000% faster.
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 430 is 67% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX150 is ahead in 43 tests (96%)
- GT 430 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.66 | 1.50 |
| Recency | 17 May 2017 | 11 October 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 49 Watt |
GeForce MX150 has a 277.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 390% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX150 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX150 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
