Radeon R5 M330 vs GeForce GT 430

Place in the ranking	968	969
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.05	no data
Power efficiency	2.21	5.97
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GF108	Exo
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	11 October 2010 (14 years ago)	5 May 2015 (9 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 cores	96	320
CUDA cores per GPU	96	no data
Compute units	no data	5
Core clock speed	700 MHz	955 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1030 MHz
Number of transistors	585 million	690 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	49 Watt	18 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	98 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	11.20	20.60
Floating-point processing power	0.2688 TFLOPS	0.6592 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	8
TMUs	16	20

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	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	145 mm	no data
Height	2.713" (6.9 cm)	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate)	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 - 28.8 GB/s	14.4 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

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

HD3D	-	+
PowerTune	-	+
DualGraphics	-	+
ZeroCore	-	+
Switchable graphics	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	5.1	5.0
OpenGL	4.2	4.4
OpenCL	1.1	Not Listed
Vulkan	N/A	+
Mantle	-	+
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
+0.6%

R5 M330 1.54

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
+0.7%

R5 M330 595

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

R5 M330 922
+28.1%

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

9−10

+0%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

8.78

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −18.2%	13 +18.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

1440p
High Preset

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

1440p
Ultra Preset

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

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
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

+0%

3−4

+0%

This is how GT 430 and R5 M330 compete in popular games:

A tie in 1080p

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

in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 430 is 100% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R5 M330 is 18% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 430 is ahead in 4 tests (8%)
R5 M330 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
there's a draw in 44 tests (90%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.55	1.54
Recency	11 October 2010	5 May 2015
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	49 Watt	18 Watt

GT 430 has a 0.6% higher aggregate performance score.

R5 M330, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 172.2% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 430 and Radeon R5 M330.

Be aware that GeForce GT 430 is a desktop card while Radeon R5 M330 is a notebook one.

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