GeForce GT 430 vs Radeon RX Vega 11

Place in the ranking	609	971
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.05
Power efficiency	10.80	2.19
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Raven	GF108
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	10 May 2018 (6 years ago)	11 October 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$79

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	704	96
CUDA cores per GPU	no data	96
Core clock speed	300 MHz	700 MHz
Boost clock speed	1251 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,940 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	49 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	98 °C
Texture fill rate	55.04	11.20
Floating-point processing power	1.761 TFLOPS	0.2688 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	44	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	IGP	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Height	no data	2.713" (6.9 cm)
Width	IGP	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	System Shared	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	1 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate)
Memory bandwidth	no data	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	Motherboard Dependent	HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal

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 (6.4)	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.2
OpenCL	2.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.3	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.

RX Vega 11 5.49
+252%

GT 430 1.56

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.

RX Vega 11 2109
+251%

GT 430 601

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.

RX Vega 11 3494
+385%

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 HD	28 +300%	7−8 −300%
1440p	5 +400%	1−2 −400%
4K	12 +300%	3−4 −300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	11.29
1440p	no data	79.00
4K	no data	26.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Elden Ring	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Forza Horizon 4	20 +122%	9−10 −122%
Metro Exodus	18	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Valorant	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Dota 2	27 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
Elden Ring	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Far Cry 5	30 +173%	10−12 −173%
Fortnite	30−35 +357%	7−8 −357%
Forza Horizon 4	17 +88.9%	9−10 −88.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
Metro Exodus	11	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	54 +238%	16−18 −238%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
Valorant	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%
World of Tanks	85−90 +175%	30−35 −175%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Dota 2	42 +2000%	2−3 −2000%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +136%	10−12 −136%
Forza Horizon 4	15 +66.7%	9−10 −66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +188%	16−18 −188%
Valorant	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Elden Ring	6−7	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +250%	10−11 −250%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5	0−1
World of Tanks	40−45 +344%	9−10 −344%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Valorant	14−16 +114%	7−8 −114%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Elden Ring	3−4	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +13.3%	14−16 −13.3%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	15 +275%	4−5 −275%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +13.3%	14−16 −13.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Dota 2	17 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Fortnite	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Valorant	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%

This is how RX Vega 11 and GT 430 compete in popular games:

RX Vega 11 is 300% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 11 is 400% faster in 1440p
RX Vega 11 is 300% faster in 4K

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

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega 11 is 2000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega 11 is ahead in 44 tests (98%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.49	1.56
Recency	10 May 2018	11 October 2010
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	49 Watt

RX Vega 11 has a 251.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 40% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 11 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.