GeForce GT 430 vs Quadro P1000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P1000 with GeForce GT 430, including specs and performance data.
P1000 outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 646% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 414 | 970 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.76 | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 20.08 | 2.20 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 February 2017 (7 years ago) | 11 October 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $375 | $79 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro P1000 has 11420% better value for money than GT 430.
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 | 640 | 96 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1493 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1519 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 48.61 | 11.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.555 TFLOPS | 0.2688 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 16 |
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 | no data | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | MXM Module | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) |
| Memory bandwidth | 96.13 GB/s | 25.6 - 28.8 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 | Portable Device Dependent | HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | + |
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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 | 46
+667%
| 6−7
−667%
|
| 4K | 11
+1000%
| 1−2
−1000%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 8.15
+61.5%
| 13.17
−61.5%
|
| 4K | 34.09
+132%
| 79.00
−132%
|
- Quadro P1000 has 62% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Quadro P1000 has 132% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+411%
|
9−10
−411%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+650%
|
6−7
−650%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+318%
|
10−12
−318%
|
| Fortnite | 41
+486%
|
7−8
−486%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+411%
|
9−10
−411%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 103
+544%
|
16−18
−544%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+650%
|
6−7
−650%
|
| World of Tanks | 160−170
+406%
|
30−35
−406%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+318%
|
10−12
−318%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+411%
|
9−10
−411%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+450%
|
16−18
−450%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+650%
|
6−7
−650%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Elden Ring | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+530%
|
10−11
−530%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 80−85
+822%
|
9−10
−822%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+314%
|
7−8
−314%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Elden Ring | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+46.7%
|
14−16
−46.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+46.7%
|
14−16
−46.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
This is how Quadro P1000 and GT 430 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P1000 is 667% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P1000 is 1000% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Elden Ring, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Quadro P1000 is 3300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P1000 surpassed GT 430 in all 45 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.64 | 1.56 |
| Recency | 7 February 2017 | 11 October 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 49 Watt |
Quadro P1000 has a 646.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 22.5% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P1000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 430 is a desktop 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.
