Arc A310 vs GeForce GT 430

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 430 and Arc A310, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 430
2010
1 GB GDDR3, 49 Watt
1.35

Arc A310 outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 801% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking986383
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.05no data
Power efficiency2.1812.86
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGF108DG2-128
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date11 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 cores96768
CUDA cores per GPU96no data
Core clock speed700 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2000 MHz
Number of transistors585 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)49 Watt75 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature98 °Cno data
Texture fill rate11.2064.00
Floating-point processing power0.2688 TFLOPS3.072 TFLOPS
ROPs416
TMUs1632
Tensor Coresno data96
Ray Tracing Coresno data6

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 supportPCI-E 2.0 x 16no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length145 mmno data
Height2.713" (6.9 cm)no data
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate)1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 - 28.8 GB/s124.0 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 ConnectorsHDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVINo outputs
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.24.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
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 1.35
Arc A310 12.17
+801%

  • 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 430 602
Arc A310 5436
+803%

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 HD4−5
−825%
37
+825%

Cost per frame, $

1080p19.75no 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
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−800%
27−30
+800%
Hogwarts Legacy 2−3
−2000%
42
+2000%
Battlefield 5 2−3
−2800%
55−60
+2800%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−800%
27−30
+800%
Fortnite 5−6
−1420%
75−80
+1420%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−600%
55−60
+600%
Hogwarts Legacy 2−3
−1650%
35
+1650%
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%
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 2−3
−1000%
22
+1000%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
−380%
45−50
+380%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−833%
56
+833%
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%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−600%
55−60
+600%
Hogwarts Legacy 2−3
−650%
15
+650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
−380%
45−50
+380%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−383%
29
+383%
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 14−16
−736%
110−120
+736%
Valorant 8−9
−1638%
130−140
+1638%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2800%
27−30
+2800%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−967%
30−35
+967%
Hogwarts Legacy 0−1 14−16
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−950%
21−24
+950%
Fortnite 2−3
−1350%
27−30
+1350%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−66.7%
24−27
+66.7%
Valorant 8−9
−800%
70−75
+800%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 5−6
Dota 2 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−600%
14−16
+600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%
Fortnite 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%
Counter-Strike 2 154
+0%
154
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 106
+0%
106
+0%
Far Cry 5 51
+0%
51
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 33
+0%
33
+0%
Far Cry 5 47
+0%
47
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 44
+0%
44
+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 18−20
+0%
18−20
+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 41 test (68%)
  • there's a draw in 19 tests (32%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.35 12.17
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 801.5% 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 430
GeForce GT 430
Intel Arc A310
Arc A310

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3
1171 vote

Rate GeForce GT 430 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7
264 votes

Rate Arc A310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 430 or Arc A310, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.