GeForce GT 430 vs Radeon RX Vega 11
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 11 and GeForce GT 430, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 11 outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 250% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 627 | 986 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 10.70 | 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
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 and SDK 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.
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.
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
+250%
| 8−9
−250%
|
| 1440p | 6
+500%
| 1−2
−500%
|
| 4K | 12
+300%
| 3−4
−300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 9.88 |
| 1440p | no data | 79.00 |
| 4K | no data | 26.33 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Fortnite | 86
+1620%
|
5−6
−1620%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 38
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+77.1%
|
35−40
−77.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+172%
|
30−35
−172%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Dota 2 | 46
+156%
|
18−20
−156%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Fortnite | 31
+520%
|
5−6
−520%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+77.1%
|
35−40
−77.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 25
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Dota 2 | 42
+133%
|
18−20
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 29
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+77.1%
|
35−40
−77.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−33
+500%
|
5−6
−500%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+333%
|
9−10
−333%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+150%
|
14−16
−150%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+613%
|
8−9
−613%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 24−27
+225%
|
8−9
−225%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 17
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
This is how RX Vega 11 and GT 430 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 11 is 250% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 11 is 500% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 11 is 300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 11 is 1620% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX Vega 11 surpassed GT 430 in all 44 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.72 | 1.35 |
| 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 249.6% 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
