Radeon R5 430 OEM vs GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile with Radeon R5 430 OEM, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile outperforms R5 430 OEM by a whopping 803% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 276 | 858 |
| Place by popularity | 48 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 28.24 | 3.75 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2025) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GN20-P0 | Oland |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (4 years ago) | 30 June 2016 (9 years ago) |
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 | 2048 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1238 MHz | 730 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 780 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 18.72 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.599 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
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 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 36.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
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 | 62
+933%
| 6−7
−933%
|
| 1440p | 43
+975%
| 4−5
−975%
|
| 4K | 26
+1200%
| 2−3
−1200%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170
+844%
|
18−20
−844%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66
+843%
|
7−8
−843%
|
| God of War | 51
+920%
|
5−6
−920%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 93
+830%
|
10−11
−830%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 125
+942%
|
12−14
−942%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+940%
|
5−6
−940%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+871%
|
7−8
−871%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+850%
|
12−14
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+900%
|
9−10
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 87
+867%
|
9−10
−867%
|
| God of War | 42
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+878%
|
9−10
−878%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+900%
|
16−18
−900%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 89
+889%
|
9−10
−889%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+830%
|
27−30
−830%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
+883%
|
12−14
−883%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
+814%
|
7−8
−814%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+850%
|
12−14
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+900%
|
9−10
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 77
+863%
|
8−9
−863%
|
| God of War | 35
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+856%
|
9−10
−856%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49
+880%
|
5−6
−880%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+878%
|
9−10
−878%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+913%
|
8−9
−913%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+900%
|
16−18
−900%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 83
+822%
|
9−10
−822%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+833%
|
12−14
−833%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+917%
|
6−7
−917%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+900%
|
9−10
−900%
|
| God of War | 23
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+878%
|
9−10
−878%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+900%
|
16−18
−900%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+850%
|
12−14
−850%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+860%
|
5−6
−860%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+913%
|
16−18
−913%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 48
+860%
|
5−6
−860%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+867%
|
18−20
−867%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+838%
|
21−24
−838%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+843%
|
7−8
−843%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 49
+880%
|
5−6
−880%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+867%
|
6−7
−867%
|
| God of War | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
+980%
|
5−6
−980%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+843%
|
14−16
−843%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 62
+933%
|
6−7
−933%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+900%
|
4−5
−900%
|
| God of War | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
This is how RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and R5 430 OEM compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 933% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 975% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 1200% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.22 | 2.46 |
| Recency | 11 May 2021 | 30 June 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 50 Watt |
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile has a 803.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
R5 430 OEM, on the other hand, has 20% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 430 OEM in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon R5 430 OEM is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
