GeForce GT 430 vs Quadro P2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P2000 with GeForce GT 430, including specs and performance data.
P2000 outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 1104% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 306 | 981 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 9.40 | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 17.25 | 2.19 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (8 years ago) | 11 October 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $585 | $79 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Quadro P2000 has 18700% 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 | 1024 | 96 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1076 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 94.72 | 11.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.031 TFLOPS | 0.2688 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 201 mm | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | 1-slot | 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 | 5 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 160 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) |
| Memory bandwidth | 140.2 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 | 4x DisplayPort | 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 | + | 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.
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 | 56
+1300%
| 4−5
−1300%
|
| 1440p | 20
+1900%
| 1−2
−1900%
|
| 4K | 16
+1500%
| 1−2
−1500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 10.45
+89.1%
| 19.75
−89.1%
|
| 1440p | 29.25
+170%
| 79.00
−170%
|
| 4K | 36.56
+116%
| 79.00
−116%
|
- Quadro P2000 has 89% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Quadro P2000 has 170% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Quadro P2000 has 116% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+1050%
|
4−5
−1050%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+1163%
|
8−9
−1163%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+1050%
|
4−5
−1050%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+1163%
|
8−9
−1163%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 144
+2780%
|
5−6
−2780%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+813%
|
8−9
−813%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 53
+430%
|
10−11
−430%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+289%
|
35−40
−289%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+1050%
|
4−5
−1050%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+1163%
|
8−9
−1163%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+588%
|
30−35
−588%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+467%
|
18−20
−467%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 60
+1100%
|
5−6
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+813%
|
8−9
−813%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+3250%
|
2−3
−3250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 41
+310%
|
10−11
−310%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+533%
|
6−7
−533%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+289%
|
35−40
−289%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Dota 2 | 98
+444%
|
18−20
−444%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+813%
|
8−9
−813%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+289%
|
35−40
−289%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+1333%
|
9−10
−1333%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+1079%
|
14−16
−1079%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+2038%
|
8−9
−2038%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+1150%
|
4−5
−1150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+113%
|
14−16
−113%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+1150%
|
8−9
−1150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
This is how Quadro P2000 and GT 430 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P2000 is 1300% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P2000 is 1900% faster in 1440p
- Quadro P2000 is 1500% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro P2000 is 3600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P2000 surpassed GT 430 in all 45 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.25 | 1.35 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 11 October 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 49 Watt |
Quadro P2000 has a 1103.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 400% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
GT 430, on the other hand, has 53.1% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 430 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.
