Quadro T2000 Mobile vs GeForce GT 430
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 430 with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T2000 Mobile outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 1231% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 971 | 269 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.19 | 23.83 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 11 October 2010 (14 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 1024 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 1575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 98 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 11.20 | 114.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2688 TFLOPS | 3.656 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 64 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Height | 2.713" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 - 28.8 GB/s | 128.0 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 | HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−311%
|
35−40
+311%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−925%
|
40−45
+925%
|
| Elden Ring | 1−2
−6500%
|
65−70
+6500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−3200%
|
65−70
+3200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−311%
|
35−40
+311%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−925%
|
40−45
+925%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−878%
|
85−90
+878%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−571%
|
45−50
+571%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−3200%
|
65−70
+3200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−311%
|
35−40
+311%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−925%
|
40−45
+925%
|
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−3550%
|
70−75
+3550%
|
| Elden Ring | 1−2
−6500%
|
65−70
+6500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−518%
|
65−70
+518%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−1457%
|
100−110
+1457%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−878%
|
85−90
+878%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−3550%
|
70−75
+3550%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−763%
|
130−140
+763%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−571%
|
45−50
+571%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−725%
|
65−70
+725%
|
| World of Tanks | 30−35
−638%
|
230−240
+638%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−3200%
|
65−70
+3200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−311%
|
35−40
+311%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−925%
|
40−45
+925%
|
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−3550%
|
70−75
+3550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−518%
|
65−70
+518%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−878%
|
85−90
+878%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−763%
|
130−140
+763%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 35−40 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1620%
|
170−180
+1620%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 18−20 |
| World of Tanks | 9−10
−1456%
|
140−150
+1456%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1040%
|
55−60
+1040%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−867%
|
27−30
+867%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−671%
|
50−55
+671%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−1450%
|
60−65
+1450%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Elden Ring, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 6500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T2000 Mobile is ahead in 45 tests (78%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (22%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.56 | 20.77 |
| Recency | 11 October 2010 | 27 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 60 Watt |
GT 430 has 22.4% lower power consumption.
T2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 1231.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 430 is a desktop card while Quadro T2000 Mobile 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.
