Arc A310 vs GeForce GT 430

Place in the ranking	987	383
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.05	no data
Power efficiency	2.18	12.83
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GF108	DG2-128
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	11 October 2010 (14 years ago)	12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$79	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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	96	768
CUDA cores per GPU	96	no data
Core clock speed	700 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2000 MHz
Number of transistors	585 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	49 Watt	75 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	98 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	11.20	64.00
Floating-point processing power	0.2688 TFLOPS	3.072 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	16
TMUs	16	32
Tensor Cores	no data	96
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	6

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	PCI-E 2.0 x 16	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	145 mm	no data
Height	2.713" (6.9 cm)	no data
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	GDDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate)	1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 - 28.8 GB/s	124.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-
Resizable BAR	-	+

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	HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.6
OpenGL	4.2	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	+	-
DLSS	-	+

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.

GT 430 1.51

Arc A310 13.58
+799%

Other tests
- Passmark
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

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.

GT 430 604

Arc A310 5436
+800%

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.

GT 430 720

Arc A310 8464
+1076%

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

4−5

−825%

37
+825%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

19.75

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset
Full HD
Medium Preset
Full HD
High Preset
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Full HD
Epic Preset
1440p
High Preset
1440p
Ultra Preset
1440p
Epic Preset
4K
High Preset
4K
Ultra Preset
4K
Epic Preset
Full HD
Low Preset
Full HD
Medium Preset
Full HD
High Preset
1440p
High Preset
1440p
Ultra Preset
4K
High Preset
4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Hogwarts Legacy	5−6 −740%	42 +740%

Battlefield 5	2−3 −2800%	55−60 +2800%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −2450%	51 +2450%
Fortnite	5−6 −1420%	75−80 +1420%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −600%	55−60 +600%
Hogwarts Legacy	5−6 −600%	35 +600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 −380%	45−50 +380%
Valorant	35−40 −223%	110−120 +223%

Battlefield 5	2−3 −2800%	55−60 +2800%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	30−35 −472%	180−190 +472%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Dota 2	18−20 −789%	160−170 +789%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −2250%	47 +2250%
Fortnite	5−6 −1420%	75−80 +1420%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −600%	55−60 +600%
Grand Theft Auto V	2−3 −1300%	28 +1300%
Hogwarts Legacy	5−6 −340%	22 +340%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −1250%	27−30 +1250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 −380%	45−50 +380%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −700%	56 +700%
Valorant	35−40 −223%	110−120 +223%

Battlefield 5	2−3 −2800%	55−60 +2800%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Dota 2	18−20 −789%	160−170 +789%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −2100%	44 +2100%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −600%	55−60 +600%
Hogwarts Legacy	5−6 −200%	15 +200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 −380%	45−50 +380%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −314%	29 +314%
Valorant	35−40 −223%	110−120 +223%

Fortnite

5−6

−1420%

75−80
+1420%

Counter-Strike 2	0−1	24−27
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	9−10 −1000%	95−100 +1000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	9−10 −1289%	120−130 +1289%
Valorant	8−9 −1650%	140−150 +1650%

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −460%	27−30 +460%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −967%	30−35 +967%
Hogwarts Legacy	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −533%	18−20 +533%

Fortnite

2−3

−1350%

27−30
+1350%

Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −66.7%	24−27 +66.7%
Valorant	7−8 −929%	70−75 +929%

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	5−6
Dota 2	2−3 −700%	16−18 +700%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −250%	14−16 +250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%

Fortnite

3−4

−333%

12−14
+333%

Counter-Strike 2

154

+0%

154

+0%

Counter-Strike 2	106 +0%	106 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Counter-Strike 2	33 +0%	33 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

Battlefield 5

35−40

+0%

35−40

+0%

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Hogwarts Legacy	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Hogwarts Legacy	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

This is how GT 430 and Arc A310 compete in popular games:

Arc A310 is 825% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A310 is 2800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Arc A310 is ahead in 45 tests (74%)
there's a draw in 16 tests (26%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.51	13.58
Recency	11 October 2010	12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	49 Watt	75 Watt

GT 430 has 53.1% lower power consumption.

Arc A310, on the other hand, has a 799.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A310 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.