Galaxy GeForce GT 430 Video Card Review @ [H]

....stares at 8800GS...then GT430.....eeh.

but, thats gaming. Sounds like a good HD playback/Emulation HTPC card. Nice to hear about the fan.
 
I was expecting more after 460...
BUT! it looks like the new arch isnt half bad.

reminds me of 2900XT, really does, HD2600 was a rather good card, nvidia does it good in the lower -> midrange, allthough very late.

Mafia II and metro 2033 is also two nvidia games, and still the 5670 was faster.
the power consumtion and features are very welcome from nvidia!

Not halfbad at all :)
Really need the compotition, my videocard is now 23% more expensive than launch... in last october! (HD5850) but i cant complain about that though.

suprised me that 5670 and 430 can do that resolution! seems like low end gaming cards matches the slow resolution increase by the masses :)

Good review, Thank you.
 
10 months later they come up with this? expect more spanking when 6xxx is released in the next month or 2.
 
i don't get it, after the 460, i really thought nvidia was back on track, but then the 450 and this card... what's the point....
 
It is interesting to see a low powered Fermi application...interesting card...just not for the price...

nVidia is starting to feel like 3DFX to me...hopefully Maxwell and Kepler can turn things around (kinda like Rampage would have ;))
 
Last edited:
I read the Anand article. At first I thought they would review it more favorably than you guys since they believe the 5560 is the card to test it against but that proved to not be the case. I'm not sure but I think your article missed something Anand caught. According to anand the card is abysmal even as a HTPC card specifically because the 55XX and 56XX have the superior image quality when it came to media (movies etc..).

Did you guys notice anything about the 430's image quality?


Oddly enough I'm here because I need to replace the 6200 (w/ the "awesome" turbo cache) which no longer is good as a back up card.
 
I did not notice an image quality problem with the GT 430. Of course, HardOCP is a gaming site, so we focused on gaming, not HD video.
 
I think [H] kind of dropped the ball on this ones somewhat. Sort of, maybe.

I don't question its findings, but I do question "real gaming experience".

For starters, the testbed is way overkill for this type of cards. Who's going to pair a 1000+dlls overclocked rig with a 79 dlls video card?

I think the results the review shows, may not reflect real gameplay, simply because most of its target customers will probably have pcs based on i3, C2D, or Athlon X2/X4.

For instance, I have a C2D E4500 with 4gb, can I expect to get results close to what you got? I don't know. But if I saw them on a lesser machine I'd get a better idea of what to expect.
 
I did not notice an image quality problem with the GT 430. Of course, HardOCP is a gaming site, so we focused on gaming, not HD video.

Lol did you guys just *deep sigh* when you put this thing in a box that normally houses SLI gtx480's?
 
Lol did you guys just *deep sigh* when you put this thing in a box that normally houses SLI gtx480's?

More like a smug chortle.

Seriously, the key to doing this job is having realistic expectations. A $79 part obviously isn't going to be competing with a $150 part, and so our thought processes and opinions have to scale with cost. Unfortunately for this card, even on a cost scale, it is inadequate.
 
Last edited:
I did not notice an image quality problem with the GT 430. Of course, HardOCP is a gaming site, so we focused on gaming, not HD video.
fair enough, but it still seems like you're not really doing the card justice by focusing on an area where the card isn't really targeted. At least gaming comparisons at this price bracket are good for a laugh! Anandtech did a good job of doing a few gaming benchmarks but (rightly) saying that the focus had to be on its htpc capabilities. of course, it turns out that it can't even beat the year-old 5570 :rolleyes: IQ issues were mostly on pulldown and cadence, so its not going to be all that noticeable to most people. Even if IQ differences are marginal its hard to recommend this dud over a 5570 or 5670.

Its very hard to be impressed by its 3d capabilities when 3d equipment costs an arm and a leg. If electronics companies are honestly banking on 3D being big this christmas, they're in for a rude awakening. $2000+ on a 3D tv when non-3D models are ~900 bucks for the same thing? no thanks.
 
I think [H] kind of dropped the ball on this ones somewhat. Sort of, maybe.

I don't question its findings, but I do question "real gaming experience".

For starters, the testbed is way overkill for this type of cards. Who's going to pair a 1000+dlls overclocked rig with a 79 dlls video card?

I think the results the review shows, may not reflect real gameplay, simply because most of its target customers will probably have pcs based on i3, C2D, or Athlon X2/X4.

For instance, I have a C2D E4500 with 4gb, can I expect to get results close to what you got? I don't know. But if I saw them on a lesser machine I'd get a better idea of what to expect.

Thanks for the input, next time we do a low end card we will make sure that the gaming experience is CPU limited.
 
fair enough, but it still seems like you're not really doing the card justice by focusing on an area where the card isn't really targeted.

Galaxy came to HardOCP to review the card, not AwesomeHDVideo.com. I am sure you can find the site to answer your needs elsewhere.
 
Did the article mention whether the 5670 is a 512MB or 1GB model? I doubt it matters for gaming at such low resolutions. Still, knowing an almost one year old 512MB card (if this is the case) beats the latest 1GB low end nvidia card on price and performance makes this attempt look weak.
 
I think its jsut plain crappy and only good for light gaming on older titles. You can get a 5670 on newegg for $80. i have no loyalty to nvidia or AMD. I just want the most for my money. and AMD has been winning the GPU war since holiday 2009. And Nvidia is not competing with price and not by much in performance.
 
Disappointed once again- same price, and not anywhere CLOSE to the performance of the 5670! According to Toms Hardware (I know their testing isn't the same, but still) the 5570 still beats the 430. Thats just SAD- those 5xxx cards are aging and still better! The 5570 also has lower power usage than the 430. AMD still has the performance per watt title. 5570 still appears to be the best HTPC card, unless you want 3D (which AMD will have on the 6000 series soon).
 
Are there any nvidia branded cards, as with the 460 and 450?
 
lol. im pretty sure he was being sarcastic, as a cpu-limited rig to test a gpu is obviously retarded. :D

Hence the sarcastic response :D

Retarded as in Real world? isn't that what [H] is about? giving you reviews that shows performance you can get in the real world?

What makes sense with a 480GTX nvidia surround or 5970 crossfirex eyefinity does not necessarily apply to a card that is intended for casual gaming.
 
More like a smug chortle.

Seriously, the key to doing this job is having realistic expectations. A $79 part obviously isn't going to be competing with a $150 part, and so our thought processes and opinions have to scale with cost. Unfortunately for this card, even on a cost scale, it is inadequate.

I'm more amused by you guys playing through a Bad company 2 level with 15 FPS :D


*ok I take that back it's not that bad but close :)
 
I bet this cards folds better than the ATI card.

I know it is not gaming but still a factor for some.

But overall, like the article says, this is pretty much a sad showing from NVidia. I just dont get it.
 
Please take this as constructive criticism. I don't think anyone is/was expecting a full on HTPC test of the card. However, you know as well as we that the 430 along with a 5570 (less so with the 5670) as a gaming card would make most us gouge our eyes out. However, they sent you the card for review and it just makes common sense to at least review the thing. I'm sure all of us are thankful that you have provided us with a review despite the low gaming performance. That being said, since it sucks as a gaming card that leaves it's destiny as a HTPC card, which the article makes mention of and is something that even HardOCP members will build. Therefore inquires of image quality in a HTPC card (cause that's what it is) are just that inquiries and nothing more. I don't think anyone is expecting a thorough video acceleration test. However, a brief view of image quality when the performance is this low might be warranted since no one here is likely to use the card for anything else.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3973/nvidias-geforce-gt-430

there you are. this is in the scope of what your wanting. What H just showed that if you wanted to game on your HTPC this card sucks. and really unless your going 3d there is no compelling reason not to pick the better performing card.

as for not doing image quality, well they put this together pretty quick (there still some typos and such). probably because this card is really outside of the site focus. I am surprised that they reviewed this at all. Given that the readers here have only a light interest in such things they are probably going to put their resource towards core focus. And really most of us are well aware of what pure video can and can't do on the HTPC side. So as a business decision I don't think that they are going to put any more time in this then is necessary to get their point (or focus) ac cross.

and for the record they say it sucks as well

But for the time being, NVIDIA has delivered an $80 card that is slower and offers inferior image quality compared to its competition – an unenviable position indeed. Only by 3D stereoscopy is it saved from being a flop, making the GT 430 a very significant gamble for NVIDIA. If it turns out that this isn’t a 3D Christmas then it’s not just going to be the CE companies that would be hurting.
 
Last edited:
as for not doing image quality, well they put this together pretty quick (there still some typos and such). probably because this card is really outside of the site focus. I am surprised that they reviewed this at all. Given that the readers here have only a light interest in such things they are probably going to put their resource towards core focus. And really most of us are well aware of what pure video can and can't do on the HTPC side. So as a business decision I don't think that they are going to put any more time in this then is necessary to get their point (or focus) ac cross.

That's precisely the point I'm getting at. The card itself is pretty much outside of Hard's core focus. However, since it was reviewed I think it's normal that people would inquire about it in regards to a HTPC point of view. Since no one here is going to game on it. I completely understand the lack of resources placed on reviewing a card such as this. Hell Tech didn't even really review it. I'm just saying that inquiries on image quality were valid since I don't think anyone here is going to want to game at 15FPS.
 
Uhmm, come to think of it, I can see how this card could become a "winner".

HP, Dell, and like can market their desktops as Next Gen Home Theater with 3D and gaming support.

I am sure a lot of mainstream folks at BestBuy will go for it.
 
Allright here goes, meh on the card. What I'm really interested in and many have asked before, would be a dedicated physx real world performance analysis and folding performance breakdown analysis of these cards;

GTX 460 1gb
GTX 460 768
GTs 450
GT 430

also throw in a older gpu like a gts 250 for good measure to see if fermi does anything special on the physx and folding front that otherwise isn't noted.

Besides all that why not, people look at these low to mid range cards cards as a possible physx dedicated card. Mafia 2 has nice features when you dedicate a physx card and I would like to see how this translates to real world performance. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Also if I were to buy a card for dedicated physx I'm sure I would like more use for it than just that. Personally I'd plan to have it fold while not doing physX in games. 24 hours at that. How many points will it fold for me?

Also in the end of the folding analysis you'd have folded more points for the [H]orde so what's the harm in that :D

I started a poll to see what kind of interest there would be in a article like this here is the link http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1553326
 
Last edited:
Well here's that single slot Fermi I've been waiting for just for CUDA development :D. Other than that I don't see much of a use for it.
 
To me, in order for a card to be media-centric, it needs to be low-profile convert-able.

My HTPC case won't take standard profile cards. Hopefully this will come in low profile soon. I'm liking the specifications and it'd be a very nice upgrade from my 220.
 
I know two other people who have HTPCs and love the site, so I was surprised that no one tried to hook this up to a 3D display and see if it actually looked good. Since FPS was obviously not the focus of the card, it would have been neat to see if, for example, this could make an Atom-based HTPC tolerable for video playback, etc.

I do think that slowly expanding the content offered through the site is a good idea since even the "enthusiast" crowd changes over time. I thought that in choosing to review a card that we already knew would be poor for hardcore gaming, perhaps it showed a slight change in focus, but alas it didn't.

Thanks for posting the performance numbers, but I honestly don't think you can call this an actual review since the card wasn't tested fairly for its intended purpose.
 
hey Brent or Kyle, i was wondering if either of you decided to put it up against a GT 240.. i find it odd that they would pick the GT 220 as the card to replace.. why not go after the high end version of that series.. makes me wonder if Nvidia is hiding something with this GT 430.. either way nice review..

though i agree with some people would of been nice to see maybe what the CPU/GPU load would of been playing a bluray some where near the end of the review.. the playback quality isnt a big deal to me since thats subjective of the person viewing it..
 
Allright here goes, meh on the card. What I'm really interested in and many have asked before, would be a dedicated physx real world performance analysis and folding performance breakdown analysis of these cards;

GTX 460 1gb
GTX 460 768
GTs 450
GT 430

also throw in a older gpu like a gts 250 for good measure to see if fermi does anything special on the physx and folding front that otherwise isn't noted.

Besides all that why not, people look at these low to mid range cards cards as a possible physx dedicated card. Mafia 2 has nice features when you dedicate a physx card and I would like to see how this translates to real world performance. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Also if I were to buy a card for dedicated physx I'm sure I would like more use for it than just that. Personally I'd plan to have it fold while not doing physX in games. 24 hours at that. How many points will it fold for me?

Also in the end of the folding analysis you'd have folded more points for the [H]orde so what's the harm in that :D

I started a poll to see what kind of interest there would be in a article like this here is the link http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1553326

1. physX is an annoying nvidia gimmic..

2. F@H is to subjective.. has to many variables.. each WU is different.. each WU performs differently.. so the only way to give an exact number is to run the same exact work unit on every card.. good luck with that..
 
Uhmm, come to think of it, I can see how this card could become a "winner".

HP, Dell, and like can market their desktops as Next Gen Home Theater with 3D and gaming support.

I am sure a lot of mainstream folks at BestBuy will go for it.

+10 pts to the only person who can see past "enthusiast" smugness on how things work in the real world. Every friggin thing is 3D this and 3D that. nVidia is trying to ride that hype while it lasts. They won't be putting "30% slower than 5670!" on retail boxes, that's for sure.

Performance wise it's a mixed bag. Nice improvement over GT216 with similar specs but it goes to show there's no way they can get as much gaming perf per transistor out of Fermi as AMD can get out of Evergreen. Hence the "it's not meant for gamers pitch". All they have is 3D but at this price point that's probably gonna turn more heads in a Best Buy.
 
Anand never has done any good IQ comparisons. The GT 430's IQ is as up to par as the other Fermi GPUs. i didn't study my Galaxy GT 430 IQ either, but i didn't catch anything out of the ordinary. i focus on gaming also and the card is a decent upgrade replacement for GT 220 imo. DVD playback is OK; i didn't do any BluRay nor 3D video analysis. And it is *quiet* and suitable as a HTPC card. i would have to agree with HardOCP conclusions.

Anand is right about one thing; Nvidia is going to focus on 3D and that is why they are partnering with Best Buy who needs to make some fat profit on HD3dTV.

I read the Anand article. At first I thought they would review it more favorably than you guys since they believe the 5560 is the card to test it against but that proved to not be the case. I'm not sure but I think your article missed something Anand caught. According to anand the card is abysmal even as a HTPC card specifically because the 55XX and 56XX have the superior image quality when it came to media (movies etc..).

Did you guys notice anything about the 430's image quality?


Oddly enough I'm here because I need to replace the 6200 (w/ the "awesome" turbo cache) which no longer is good as a back up card.
 
I'm really curious to see where the "semi-forgotten" GT240 comes in. That card is hitting $40 AR, which is half the price of these, but what performance ratio?
 
Back
Top