NVS 3100M vs Radeon R5 M430
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M430 with NVS 3100M, including specs and performance data.
R5 M430 outperforms NVS 3100M by a whopping 219% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 941 | 1230 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.61 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Exo | GT218 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 15 May 2016 (8 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (15 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 | 320 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 1030 MHz | 606 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1030 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 14 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.60 | 4.848 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6592 TFLOPS | 0.04698 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 20 | 8 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 12.64 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 | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.2 |
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 Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 13
+225%
| 4−5
−225%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| World of Tanks | 30−35
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
This is how R5 M430 and NVS 3100M compete in popular games:
- R5 M430 is 225% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R5 M430 is 900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 M430 is ahead in 28 tests (85%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (15%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.69 | 0.53 |
| Recency | 15 May 2016 | 7 January 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
R5 M430 has a 218.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R5 M430 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 3100M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M430 is a notebook graphics card while NVS 3100M is a mobile workstation 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.
