nVIDIA GT 1030 pictures from MSI & Gigabyte

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Bleedingyamato said:

That's a rather bad AMD card I assume?

Top end APU -- it's around an R5 250 I think.

[Okjoek]

The best iGPU I know of is Intel's Iris pro which are in the Skull canyon NUC or on an i7 5775C. It is a terrible value.

 

The best iGPU I know of that's good value is probably something like an A10 7850K or an Intel Kaby Lake Pentium.

 

This video is so stupid, but I am so down with the message of budget hardware.

 

[NumLock21]

4 minutes ago, dexT said:

Yuk. Ok I thought it was going to be $30-$50 like the 710 and 730.

Nope it's more than that. Now if it was $30 to $50, then yes it will be a great video card for basic use.

 

3 minutes ago, Bleedingyamato said:

Ok but almost nothing has those.  Most Intel CPUs have the standard Intel iGPUs.

They have it on their Kaby Lake Xeons

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

The best iGPU I know of is Intel's Iris pro which are in the Skull canyon NUC or on an i7 5775C. It is a terrible value.

 

The best iGPU I know of that's good value is probably something like an A10 7850K or an Intel Kaby Lake Pentium.

6785R has HD580 which is better than the 5775c's. 

 

HD 630 beats the 7850k's iGPU. 

[PlayStation 2]

3 hours ago, H0R53 said:

I get a solid 60 in the following, all on the highest settings possible:

Dolphin emulator: Twilight Princess at 4K

You really overestimate this as being hard to do at 2160p.

[Marinatall_Ironside]

I like how people are saying that Pascal is simply Maxwell overclocked. If you live by that statement you're just as misinformed as the person sitting next to you reading a damn newspaper or watching the news on television.

 

Fundamentally speaking, Pascal is DIFFERENT from Maxwell! Even if it shares the same layout as its predecessor, you can't remotely compare it to Maxwell. There's a whole different architecture underneath it and it uses different resource allocations, a newer memory controller, newer revisions of things like CUDA (Maxwell ran CUDA 5.3 while Pascal runs CUDA 6.1 on GP102, GP104, GP106, GP107, and GP108), OpenCL, etc., different manufacturing process (everyone should know this, which clearly yields better power efficiency, granting much better performance-per-watt), and newer technologies like GPU Boost 3.0 that Maxwell doesn't even support at all.

 

This isn't so hard to look up at all.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_10_series

 

For the GT 1030, USD $50 would be the max I'd pay for it if I were to buy it. Any more is just stupid IMO.

[Misanthrope]

15 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

The best iGPU I know of is Intel's Iris pro which are in the Skull canyon NUC or on an i7 5775C. It is a terrible value.

 

The best iGPU I know of that's good value is probably something like an A10 7850K or an Intel Kaby Lake Pentium.

-vid here-

This video is so stupid, but I am so down with the message of budget hardware.

 

Agreed but the caveat is that I am willing to reevaluate the rumored Ryzen APU: 4 cores and a bit below the 460 in performance is not bad for media center shit and some very basic gaming.

[Okjoek]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

6785R has HD580 which is better than the 5775c's. 

 

HD 630 beats the 7850k's iGPU. 

Oh the Iris Pro 580 that's what I was thinking of from the Skullcanyon NUC right? 

 

By how much does HD 630 beat the R7 of the APU?

I probably shouldn't use this a source, but Userbenchmark seems to rank them pretty close to eachother.

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-HD-630-Desktop-Kaby-Lake-vs-AMD-Radeon-R7-Graphics/m178724vsm8791

 

Watching a few rocket league FPS tests on YT seems to confirm this. Maybe Intel is faster, it's about time even with whatever advantages DDR4 gave them they're only just catching up just in time for Raven Ridge to say "lol nope."

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 hours ago, MyName13 said:

Why would anyone use these instead of igpus?

It's for hack system builders you see on NewEgg and Amazon who put a video card in their systems and call it a "Gaming PC"

 

Like this bad boy here:

https://www.amazon.com/CybertronPC-Rhodium-R7-X4-Gaming-Quad-Core/dp/B01DDQZTZS/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1494543106&sr=1-1-spons&keywords=gaming+pc&psc=1

[79wjd]

Just now, JurunceNK said:

you can't remotely compare it to Maxwell.

Actually you can. Core for core and clock for clock they perform nearly identically in gaming. Pascal never appeared in any of Nvidia's roadmaps until it was added at the last minute because they were having trouble moving to 20nm.

Just now, JurunceNK said:

There's a whole different architecture underneath it and it uses different resource allocations, a newer memory controller, newer revisions of things like CUDA (Maxwell ran CUDA 5.3 while Pascal runs CUDA 6.1 on GP102, GP104, GP106, GP107, and GP108), OpenCL, etc., 

A new memory controller leads to faster memory, but that's irrelevant to the architecture itself. Maxwell GTX GPUs ran Cuda 5.2, not 5.3. 6.1 added better support for FP OPs. Pascal also has better pre-emption and delta color compression. Pascal is an improved Maxwell, but the underlying architecture are not that different at the end of the day.

Just now, JurunceNK said:

different manufacturing process (everyone should know this, which clearly yields better power efficiency, granting much better performance-per-watt), and newer technologies like GPU Boost 3.0 that Maxwell doesn't even support at all.

The node shrink leads to higher clocks and better efficiency, but it doesn't change the underlying architecture. 

 

1 minute ago, Okjoek said:

By how much does HD 630 beat the R7 of the APU?

I don't remember, but I don't think it was by that much. 

[Dabombinable]

49 minutes ago, Bleedingyamato said:

Does that mess up Windows update?

 

That's a rather bad AMD card I assume?

 

Ok but almost nothing has those.  Most Intel CPUs have the standard Intel iGPUs.

As far as I can tell, no it doesn't.

[Not_Sean]

3 hours ago, Okjoek said:

Even though you're all probably right I wouldn't buy a 970 over a 1050ti, but that's mostly because I like to have the newest most efficient hardware in my system, even if it's a budget model. Upgrading from entry-level is the best way to go IMO because you can upgrade more often and I don't need to fret about breaking my hardware. Like who's buying a GTX 970 these days?

Upgrading to a entry level is the WORST way to go, you end up having to replace way sooner and yeah great you staying with the current gen but means nothing if performance is garbage, lets take the 500 series for example. Tom buys a 520, Mark buys a 560 and kyle buys a 580. The next time kyle would have to upgrade would be 900 series, Mark would have to 7 series and tom is going to be buying every generation, getting zero resale value and in the long run spent more. where as kyle and mark both had a few years between them to save up. 

 

The second best card is always the greatest way to go, hence why 770/970's are the best as they can last damn long are just a little weaker than flagship and WAY cheaper. also the x60/ti series is also great value, anything below is rabbish (Except the 1050ti which is ok) 

1 hour ago, Darth Revan said:

No, you missed the point just like Linus and Luke did.

The people who buy these low end cards don't buy them for performance.

They buy them because they just want something to display an image on their monitor. They don't care about gaming or how many frames per second it gets in whatever title.

They just want a way to use their PC. The people who fall in this category either have old machines that either don't have an integrated GPU or it broke (including if they had a dedicated card and it broke) or they're getting a machine now, second hand or new that doesn't have an integrated GPU.

So they just need something to be able to connect their display to the PC.

Of course there's the exception that someone is actually going to buy them for gaming because either they don't know or someone informed them that this low end stuff is more than enough.

 

Linus and Luke never even thought about these things and just assumed everyone buying video cards are only interested in playing games, so they focused on that and showed some benchmarks to show how pathetic low end stuff performs in games without realizing that's not the point of these cards.

 

 

Still off a bit mate. I just built a ryzen system and went looking for a dGPU and this 1030 is still TERRIBLE ! if you just want something to show a picture a 610/710 will do it, going up to x30 means bugger all, so why buy it. It tricks you into thinking well its higher model so that means my computer will be faster when in normal applications (Not gaming) it is not better than a x10 or a iGPU so yes it is terrible. 

 

The only people (And my friends have done it) who go for the 30 over the 10 are guys who have very little money and are under the impression that iGPU's suck and these are awesome. so they get a worse CPU+Crap card instead of just getting the best cpu they can, running iGPU and saving up for a proper card. 

 

also a 1050ti beating a 970.. LOL!!! DAY MADE ! ! 

[Bleedingyamato]

34 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

As far as I can tell, no it doesn't.

That's good.  I'd be tempted to try it but I still want to be able to get updates.  

[AlexGoesHigh]

TFW a current HHHL cheapo video card has double the memory of a card that was the mid range sweet spot...

 

Though i'm upgrading to a 1050ti in 2 weeks so its not bad anyways.

[79wjd]

8 minutes ago, AlexGoesHigh said:

TFW a current HHHL cheapo video card has double the memory of a card that was the mid range sweet spot...

Shitty cards were never lacking VRAM. 

 

HHHL?

[ivan134]

3 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Well, someone who's considering a 970 would get a 570/580/1060. Also, you like to have the "newest most efficient hardware", yet you go AMD. mmmmmk. 

I mean, 480 uses less power than a 970. At least at stock.

[79wjd]

6 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

I mean, 480 uses less power than a 970. At least at stock.

I'm saying the choice wouldn't be between a 970 or a 1050Ti, it would be between a 970 and a 570/580/1060. My efficiency comment was directed at his statement that he always goes for the new generation because he wants the most efficient card, but then he said he always goes AMD (but in this case a 1060 is more efficient).

[AlexGoesHigh]

10 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Shitty cards were never lacking VRAM. 

 

HHHL?

Well back in the day when my GTX 560 was current mid range these type of cards where 512MB ddr3 at the most.

 

Half Height Half Length. Its the form factor of the tiny PCI cards.

[Not_Sean]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

I'm saying the choice wouldn't be between a 970 or a 1050Ti, it would be between a 970 and a 570/580/1060. My efficiency comment was directed at his statement that he always goes for the new generation because he wants the most efficient card, but then he went for a 480 (instead of the more efficient 1060).

Agree there, I just sold my 580 and was looking at 960/970 but man the 970 has held a good bit of value but ended up going for a great deal on a RX470. 

[Grinners]

You guys are delusional. My 1050 slays the 1070.

[Zodiark1593]

6 hours ago, Darth Revan said:

So I guess it's time for another Linustechtips video where he completely misses the point on why people buy these low end cards.

Linus aims his criticisms at the cards that are located between cheap display adaptors/HTPC cards, and reasonable gaming cards, and there are valid points to be made. If it's just a feature you require, or connectivity, the cheapest card with said feature will be plenty. And if you need any semblance of performance, step up to a respectable gaming card or surf the used market. Settling for anything in between is quite terrible for the money. 

 

Considering the 1030 will probably be the cheapest card to have HEVC decode (and playready?), as well as 4K hdr compatibility, it may be a viable option for those on older HTPC systems due to it's feature set. Of course, the price point needs to be appealing to compete with the RX 550. 

[Okjoek]

1 hour ago, Not_Sean said:

Upgrading to a entry level is the WORST way to go, you end up having to replace way sooner and yeah great you staying with the current gen but means nothing if performance is garbage, lets take the 500 series for example. Tom buys a 520, Mark buys a 560 and kyle buys a 580. The next time kyle would have to upgrade would be 900 series, Mark would have to 7 series and tom is going to be buying every generation, getting zero resale value and in the long run spent more. where as kyle and mark both had a few years between them to save up. 

 

The second best card is always the greatest way to go, hence why 770/970's are the best as they can last damn long are just a little weaker than flagship and WAY cheaper. also the x60/ti series is also great value, anything below is rabbish (Except the 1050ti which is ok) 

 

I stand by my budget stance for many reasons.

 

They're typically better for SFF or even passive/silent systems due to volume, power and thermal constraints involved when using low profile heatsinks and smaller PSU solutions like fanless options from HDPLEX

I save on the energy bill.

I like to feel like I'm not compensating or using wealth over passion to express my PC enthusiasm.

I can breathe easy whenever my hardware breaks. Quantity has a quality all its own.

I can upgrade as often as I want or build numerous systems in a smaller time frame.

I like the minimalist challenge associated with milking the most out of the more affordable things. 

 

You could argue that I don't get a lot of the AAA titles with all their eye candy, but I don't even play a single AAA title. I never had that kind of money growing up so I've learned to find the lower cost solutions out there. I owe a lot of that to Steam and Esports. The only game I regularly play that I need to compromise on graphics settings is Planetside 2  which is a shooter I'd happily set to minimum to begin with for smoothness whether I could play on max or not. A good dev optimizes his game to run on all hardware, it's in his best interest.

 

This isn't to say that I'd never use less-budget hardware, but it would likely be for a specific reason such as:

 

I finally get tired of 1920x1080p 

I wanted a multi-monitor setup

Some AAA title slips through my "I don't need it" mentality.

 

IDK when Navi comes out, but as long as my 460 doesn't break I'm not in any hurry to upgrade like I was from my HD 8350.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[yian88]

I bet that its going to cost 80-100$ and performance like gt 210 = not even dogshit, fuuu...

[Okjoek]

25 minutes ago, yian88 said:

I bet that its going to cost 80-100$ and performance like gt 210 = not even dogshit, fuuu...

Worse value than the RX 550 you think? That card shouldn't cost over 70 dollars as it is IMO.

[Droidbot]

4 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

Worse value than the RX 550 you think? That card shouldn't cost over 70 dollars as it is IMO.

460 is $80 ffs, that thing is SUPER overpriced. if this is $50 or so it's perfect for literally any machine that needs a GPU 

 

this little thing would be enough for CSGO, League, DOTA, WoT, etc. not aaa, but better than nothing