GeForce GT 430 vs Radeon R9 M390
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M390 with GeForce GT 430, including specs and performance data.
R9 M390 outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 518% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 468 | 978 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.19 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 9 June 2015 (9 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 | 1024 | 96 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 700 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5000 Million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 49 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 11.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.2688 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 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 | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 |
| Interface | no data | 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 | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 data | HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| 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.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 43
+617%
| 6−7
−617%
|
| 4K | 20
+567%
| 3−4
−567%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 13.17 |
| 4K | no data | 26.33 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 50−55
+980%
|
5−6
−980%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+400%
|
8−9
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+151%
|
35−40
−151%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+334%
|
30−35
−334%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+267%
|
18−20
−267%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 50−55
+980%
|
5−6
−980%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+400%
|
8−9
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 34
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
+417%
|
6−7
−417%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+151%
|
35−40
−151%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+267%
|
18−20
−267%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+400%
|
8−9
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+151%
|
35−40
−151%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
+980%
|
5−6
−980%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+667%
|
9−10
−667%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+360%
|
10−11
−360%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+1175%
|
8−9
−1175%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how R9 M390 and GT 430 compete in popular games:
- R9 M390 is 617% faster in 1080p
- R9 M390 is 567% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R9 M390 is 2200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 M390 is ahead in 51 test (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.46 | 1.53 |
| Recency | 9 June 2015 | 11 October 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
R9 M390 has a 518.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R9 M390 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M390 is a notebook 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.
