GeForce GT 430 vs Radeon R7 250

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250 and GeForce GT 430, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 250
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
2.74
+76.8%

R7 250 outperforms GT 430 by an impressive 77% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking803970
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.100.05
Power efficiency2.892.17
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameOlandGF108
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)11 October 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$89 $79

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 250 has 100% 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 cores38496
CUDA cores per GPUno data96
Core clock speedno data700 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt49 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data98 °C
Texture fill rate25.2011.20
Floating-point processing power0.8064 TFLOPS0.2688 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs2416

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 supportPCIe 3.0PCI-E 2.0 x 16
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Length168 mm145 mm
Heightno data2.713" (6.9 cm)
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsN/ANone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1150 MHz800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate)
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s25.6 - 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGAHDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.2
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan-N/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.

R7 250 2.74
+76.8%
GT 430 1.55

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.

R7 250 1055
+76.1%
GT 430 599

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.

R7 250 2145
+198%
GT 430 720

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 HD21
+110%
10−12
−110%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.247.90

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+40%
14−16
−40%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+11.8%
30−35
−11.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+40%
14−16
−40%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+11.8%
30−35
−11.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+40%
14−16
−40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+11.8%
30−35
−11.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%

4K
High Preset

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

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

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

This is how R7 250 and GT 430 compete in popular games:

  • R7 250 is 110% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R7 250 is 250% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R7 250 is ahead in 46 tests (94%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.74 1.55
Recency 8 October 2013 11 October 2010
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 49 Watt

R7 250 has a 76.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 430, on the other hand, has 53.1% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 250 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.


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.


AMD Radeon R7 250
Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA GeForce GT 430
GeForce GT 430

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.


3.6 440 votes

Rate Radeon R7 250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 1127 votes

Rate GeForce GT 430 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.