GeForce 320M vs GT 430

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 430 with GeForce 320M, including specs and performance data.

GT 430
2010
1 GB GDDR3, 49 Watt
1.55
+187%

GT 430 outperforms 320M by a whopping 187% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9661217
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.05no data
Power efficiency2.201.64
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGF108C89
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date11 October 2010 (14 years ago)1 April 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$79 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores9648
CUDA cores per GPU96no data
Core clock speed700 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors585 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)49 Watt23 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature98 °Cno data
Texture fill rate11.207.200
Floating-point processing power0.2688 TFLOPS0.0912 TFLOPS
ROPs48
TMUs1616

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 2.0 x16
Length145 mmno data
Height2.713" (6.9 cm)no data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate)System Shared
Memory bandwidth25.6 - 28.8 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsHDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVINo outputs
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.23.3
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+-

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.

GT 430 1.55
+187%
GeForce 320M 0.54

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 430 599
+187%
GeForce 320M 209

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 HD55−60
+175%
20
−175%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.44no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how GT 430 and GeForce 320M compete in popular games:

  • GT 430 is 175% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 430 is 700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 430 is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.55 0.54
Recency 11 October 2010 1 April 2010
Power consumption (TDP) 49 Watt 23 Watt

GT 430 has a 187% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 6 months.

GeForce 320M, on the other hand, has 113% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 430 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 430 is a desktop card while GeForce 320M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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
NVIDIA GeForce 320M
GeForce 320M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 1116 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 52 votes

Rate GeForce 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.