nVIDIA GT 1030 pictures from MSI & Gigabyte

[79wjd]

6 hours ago, Scitesh said:

And then a bit more for an x60 card

And then a bit more for an x 70 card 

This is a slippery slope 

 

Some of the best gamers in my circle still game on a 750ti not everyone gets a budget of INR 30k for a gpu upgrade, they are considering upgrade in the sub 9k range ($120) for them this is a perfect fit (or the rx 550)

The price gap between a 550/1030 and a 460/1050 is like $20 -- if you're spending $80 on a GPU then you may as well spend the extra $20 and get something twice as fast. The price gap between a 1050/460 and a 3gb 1060/570 is $70 ($100 to a 580/1060 6gb). 

 

The problem is that the price gap between a 1030 and a 1050 is extremely small relative to the price you're paying and the extra performance you get, whereas every step above a 1050 the price/performance gets worse AND the price gaps are much larger. 1030 class cards are stupid to buy. Period. If you can't afford to spend that extra little bit of money to get something that is FAR superior, then you probably can't afford the 1030 in the first place.

[Okjoek]

3 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

The price gap between a 550/1030 and a 460/1050 is like $20 -- if you're spending $80 on a GPU then you may as well spend the extra $20 and get something twice as fast. The price gap between a 1050/460 and a 3gb 1060/570 is $70 ($100 to a 580/1060 6gb). 

 

The problem is that the price gap between a 1030 and a 1050 is extremely small relative to the price you're paying and the extra performance you get, whereas every step above a 1050 the price/performance gets worse AND the price gaps are much larger. 1030 class cards are stupid to buy. Period. If you can't afford to spend that extra little bit of money to get something that is FAR superior, then you probably can't afford the 1030 in the first place.

You are right. As long as the 550 is as poor value as it is it's best to stay at the high end of the low-end market as I feel I have with my <140 USD decision. I don't mean to be salty, but I was sick of one of my younger brothers who kept criticizing my decision not to go with a 470/480 when he knows I didn't have that much money to just throw around.

 

As for the price of this GT 1030 as of yet I still don't know the price, but I did a re-search and According to guru3d its "estimated price" is around 79 EUR which is 87.45 USD. 

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nvidia-geforce-gt-1030-final-specifications-has-384-shader-procs.html

 

If this is accurate then you definitely should get the 1050/1050ti instead. Within the low price points I'm much more open to letting value being a deciding factor I think.

[Castdeath97]

On 2017-5-11 at 10:35 PM, 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.

 

 

Umm, then buy a GT 210? This card is way too overpriced for basic display.

[Dabombinable]

12 hours ago, Castdeath97 said:

Umm, then buy a GT 210? This card is way too overpriced for basic display.

Hell, if you can get the drivers working even a Geforce PCX 5750 is fine. And that is a card that is well over 10 years old.

[Castdeath97]

2 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Hell, if you can get the drivers working even a Geforce PCX 5750 is fine. And that is a card that is well over 10 years old.

Also heard the thing will sell for 70 USD, lol I can get a 1050 for 30 more USD and a RX 460 for 20 more.

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, Castdeath97 said:

Also heard the thing will sell for 70 USD, lol I can get a 1050 for 30 more USD and a RX 460 for 20 more.

The GT 1030 is another GPU that makes no sense at all at its price point.

[HelplmChoking]

Hello near useless card... The only use I would ever have is if I moved my Xeon + x79 board to a secondary dedicated rendering machine, since the Xeon doesn't have an iGPU.

But even then, a machine that has no use for a GPU besides a display adapter is normally the sort of single-purpose machine you'd just remote into rather than directly controlling.

[Misanthrope]

On 5/15/2017 at 10:38 AM, Okjoek said:

I'm all for the sort of "sweet spot" GPU that's just enough performance to destroy iGPU, but light enough to be passively cooled, be kind to power bills and not require extra PCI power cables.

 

 

But isn't that the 1050 already instead of this one? 

[Guest lilbman]

On 5/11/2017 at 1:44 PM, H0R53 said:

I had a GT 710 for a while.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

It was awful.

 

 

If this has half the performance of the 1050 and my 1050 is as good (actually slightly better) than a GTX 970...

 

Well damn.

 

 

I hope this is satire.

 

A 1050 gets shat on by a 970 but matches a 960 in most titles.  A 1050 is not even in the same 'tier' as a 970. 1060 ≥ 980 > 970 > 1050Ti > 960 ≥ 1050 

[H0R53]

4 minutes ago, lilbman said:

I hope this is satire.

 

A 1050 gets shat on by a 970 but matches a 960 in most titles.  A 1050 is not even in the same 'tier' as a 970. 1060 ≥ 980 > 970 > 1050Ti > 960 ≥ 1050 

You didn't see my benchmark screenshots. Oh well.

[YedZed]

I don't get why everyone is equating these to iGPUs... Even without the Xeon and Ryzen use cases, these are not the same as iGPUs, in the simple fact that they have CUDA cores. Shouldn't that provide better performance in some small titles?

[TubsAlwaysWins]

And EVGA. Saw that on FB

[Okjoek]

With recent news of AMD's Raven Ridge APU it would appear that Ryzen APU will infact have Vega iGPU. This makes things very VERY interesting for low end graphics.

 

[79wjd]

9 hours ago, YedZed said:

I don't get why everyone is equating these to iGPUs... Even without the Xeon and Ryzen use cases, these are not the same as iGPUs, in the simple fact that they have CUDA cores. Shouldn't that provide better performance in some small titles?

Cuda is irrelevant for gaming.

[Okjoek]

There's that bulky VGA / DVI people were still asking for in 2017:

Image taken from Wccftech.

 

Thanks for the heads up TubsAlwaysWins