Galaxy GeForce GT 430 Video Card Review @ [H]

Thanks for the review, guys.

I don't know why people are getting their panties in a bunch about what is and isn't included in the review. Kyle and Co. have made it very clear for a long time that is a gaming- and overclocking-centric site. I don't go to Newegg looking for a garden hose.
 
Cobalt35 said:
Thanks for the review, guys.

I don't know why people are getting their panties in a bunch about what is and isn't included in the review. Kyle and Co. have made it very clear for a long time that is a gaming- and overclocking-centric site. I don't go to Newegg looking for a garden hose.
Click to expand...

Got a little something on your nose there :D, J/K dude. For the record the review was the bomb as usual. It's just that for these low to mid range cards I would like to see physX and folding performance for reference so that I can pick a card to add in for dedicated physx when I build my next rig which will be soon.

So for the record I'm more than satisfied and expected nothing more. I personally am just suggesting that there is a possible need for data on these cards out there and who better than our favorite hardware enthusiast site to answer the call.

I appologize if I came off selfish or anything like that. But to be honest the card gaming performance... Meh
 
meh not replacing my 5570 I snatched up for $40 from the local BB.

Actually was hoping this would be competitive, I haven't installed Nvidia in a while and would have liked to get their card. Would have gotten a 460 but I'm not upgrading from my 4890 just yet and they certainly aren't turning any heads in HTPC.
 
joecop120 said:
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?
Click to expand...

by and large its faster at the resolutions you would use these cards. and what kills me is that Nvidia is dropping them in favor of the GT430. anyways you can go and see the http://www.anandtech.com/show/3973/nvidias-geforce-gt-430/7 review and they cover it. both the GT240 and the the 5570 pretty well kick its ass though at higher resolutions (and unplayable frame rates) the GT430 does better
 
thefluffy said:
I have been reading this site daily for about 8 years, only about 5 in the forums. Frankly, your comment SEVERELY disappoints me. To me, your statement reads: Thanks for the input. We at HardOCP do what we want, not what our readers want or suggest.

You may not see a need to include that information in your reviews. That is fine. However, don't sound like a smart alec jerk to your readers.

Kyle, you usually have reason for your snide comments and smart alec responses. I usually find them entertaining even. However, this one is uncalled for and I believe you owe an apology to the person to whom you wrote it.

Daniel
Click to expand...


i dont think he owes anything.. Galaxy came to [H] to review the card knowing this is a gaming oriented review site/forum.. if they wanted a review on HTPC performance they would of gone else where which is exactly what his statement says without all the extra bs added just so peoples feelings dont get hurt..
 
Well these reviews confirmed that even with the headaches i suffered, the 5670HD was the proper card for my living room.
 
HardOCP Article said:
Any video card with an HDMI port of a version earlier than 1.4a will not support 3D HD video content, such as Blu-Ray 3D.
Click to expand...

This is not entirely true. I emailed Mark about this yesterday and have yet to see a retraction. So I'm going to point it out here so people don't think they have to get rid of their entire HDMI 1.3 setup.

You only need HDMI 1.4 if you want 1080P 3D playback. HDMI 1.3a will support 1080i 3D and 720P 3D playback. It was designed this way intentionally.

The reason HDMI 1.4 is needed for 1080P 3D is because of the increased bandwidth to transmit two frames (one for each eye)

Sony added 3D support to the PS3 by modifying the software so it recognized the additional flags on the BluRay 3D disc. However it is essentially still a 1.3 connection.

HDMI 1.x is more of a connector specification & electrical than it is a software specification. This can be thought of being akin to a Cat 5e/6 Eithernet cable.
 
Slightly siding the topic:
Given that you build a HTPC, primarily for watching movies, but also for casual gaming. It can then be expected to be hooked up to a TV with 1920x1080 resolution, which would then be the desired gaming resolution.
Also given that one accept all other graphics settings to be at the minimum, which current graphics card would provide the minimum performance required to reach playable frame rates with all current games?

(Also I totally agree with the opinion expressed in post #41. The very high performance CPU/RAM always used is, IMO, the only drawback to your test method.)
 
Awesome review. I think this will be the card to have for the htpc rigs. Cuda (for encoding), lower power with 3d support, return audio channel, dts-hd bitstreaming.

VDPAU for linux as well, nice card, great features and a great price for a HTPC card.

Anyone happen to know if this supports HDMI Networking part of the 1.4 spec?
 
Sojuuk said:
wouldn't this be a good card for dedicated physx?
Click to expand...

According to Nvidia, it is better than using a 9800GT as a dedicated PhysX card when paired with a GTX 480. . . . i will explore.
 
Spudsdude said:
Awesome review. I think this will be the card to have for the htpc rigs. Cuda (for encoding), lower power with 3d support, return audio channel, dts-hd bitstreaming.

VDPAU for linux as well, nice card, great features and a great price for a HTPC card.

Anyone happen to know if this supports HDMI Networking part of the 1.4 spec?
Click to expand...

if one is going 3d then yes. otherwise its flat inferior to the 5570 let alone the 5670. I am not sure that this is enough to redeem this card market wise. though I can see the earlier point about this being a sticker to put on retail PCs. so I am going to reserve judgment on this. Still for the money they want for this 3d better be good
 
apoppin said:

According to Nvidia, it is better than using a 9800GT as a dedicated PhysX card when paired with a GTX 480. . . . i will explore.
Click to expand...

Well it makes sense - 96 sp instead of 112 but at much higher speed and with less than half tdp.
 
Michaelius said:
Well it makes sense - 96 sp instead of 112 but at much higher speed and with less than half tdp.
Click to expand...
the gt430 has 96sp at 1400MHz while the 9800gt has 112sp at 1500MHz so I don't see how it could be faster. yeah it is "better" as in being more efficient though.
 
cannondale06 said:
the gt430 has 96sp at 1400MHz while the 9800gt has 112sp at 1500MHz so I don't see how it could be faster. yeah it is "better" as in being more efficient though.
Click to expand...

they are not the same stream processors. Fermi is a newer architecture has several differences in the performance
 
Valset said:
they are not the same stream processors. Fermi is a newer architecture has several differences in the performance
Click to expand...

From what I have read valset fermi is supposed to be slower than previous gen clock for clock sp to sp. See here as a quick example

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3973/nvidias-geforce-gt-430/16

Fermi, however has higher clocking ability, Major Memory bandwidth advantages in the GTX460 and up category and the tesellation engines etc.. which make it more powerful.

I'd be impressed if fermi were more powerful in PhysX than a previous gen (gt200 gpu)with more sp and faster clocks.
 
Valset said:
they are not the same stream processors. Fermi is a newer architecture has several differences in the performance
Click to expand...
yeah Fermi is actually SLOWER clock for clock so my point still stands. heck it basically takes 336 Fermi CUDA cores to match or beat 240 of the last gen of their cards.
 
Seems to me that the "best buy" for full-featured HTPC (with no gaming) is still the 5550. Gaming (at this price point) is also still owned by AMD.

Consequently, unless the 430's price was drastically lowered AND the video quality improved...the 430 has no place in gaming or video.

Bear in mind, I've got no loyalty to either NVIDIA or AMD. As a discerning consumer, I support only the best bang for my buck that meets or exceeds my needs. Hopefully, at some point in the near-future, we can get a third horse in this race.

ONE THING, however, is that at the $79 price point, the GT 430 should have been compared to the GT 240, not the 220. Performance-wise, it would have been nice to see it compared to the 5550 and/or 5570.
 
Last edited:
I know these reviews take a lot of time, and for that I am truly appreciative. However, given the economy and mindset of most of the readers these days, might it be a good idea to do a mid-range test bed as well? I'd say a good amount folks end up in that realm, and the information would probably be very helpful. As an owner of a OC'ed Q8200 and a stock Athlon II X4 I'd like to see a little coverage of parts purchased on a lean budget. :)

Thanks for all you do.
 
Anyone know if this is definitley single slot?
Lot of these damn GT_430's claim to be single slot but actually aren't once their gaudy cooling systems are factored in :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top