Nvidia GeForce GT 1030 2GB Review

Battlefield 1 (DirectX 12)

In our AMD Radeon RX 550 2GB Review, we tested Battlefield 1 at the game’s Low quality preset in the hope of making 1920x1080 playable. And we did, more or less. But the graphics look so bad down there that we decided to start testing at 1280x720 this time around using Medium detail.

Despite the higher quality, dropping to a lower resolution results in more frames per second, on average. Good thing, too. Although GeForce GT 1030’s GPU sports a base clock rate of 1227 MHz and a typical GPU Boost frequency of 1468 MHz, its 384 CUDA cores, 24 texture units, and 64-bit memory interface fall short of GTX 750 Ti’s 640 CUDA cores, 40 texture units, and 128-bit memory bus. In this game, at least, Nvidia’s latest only beats Intel’s on-die HD Graphics 530.

Jumping up to 1920x 1080 has the anticipated effect of cutting into performance and graphics quality, causing lots of popping and shimmering on barbed wire, especially.

Although it’s redeeming that GeForce GT 1030 achieves a higher minimum frame rate than GTX 750 Ti, it again posts a lower average frame rate than the 2014-era mid-range card. Disappointing also is that AMD’s Radeon RX 550 is almost 24% faster; we were expecting a tighter race between the two cards. But it goes to show how well the Graphics Core Next architecture handles DX12-based gaming, even on a lower-end platform.

MORE: Best Graphics Cards

MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table

MORE: All Graphics Content

This thread is closed for comments
28 comments
    Your comment
  • turkey3_scratch
    This is a fantastic chip! Seeing as it performs nearly on-par with the 750Ti, it has approximately double the performance/power ratio. It is also perfect for a noiseless PC, the passively cooled one is.
  • takeshi7
    Does this card work with 4K Netflix? From what I've read Nvidia requires 3GB VRAM for it which seems stupid and arbitrary. 2GB is enough to buffer several seconds of 4K movie frames.
  • King_V
    Definitely interesting. Going through the initial tests, I actually started wondering why the RX550 was lower in the hierarchy charts than the 750Ti.

    Then, when they switched positions in some other tests, it became more clear. And, I concluded that even putting certain cards in tiers relative to each other is not that easy.

    I was very glad to see this test, though, as I'd previously considered getting the GT1030. My need for it is no longer there.

    Overall, I think the 750Ti, RX 550, and RX 460 are closer to each other than I anticipated. It does seem the 1030 is behind them all, but not too far behind.

    Thanks for this review. I can't wait to see where it ultimately falls in the hierarchy chart(which, oddly, is missing the RX 560 but I suspect that is in the same tier as the RX 460)
  • Boom_4
    TAKESHI7
    yes it's enough, IDK where you heard that you need 3gb or VRAM.
  • hendriksnyder
    Will this work with a core I7 7700k? And would it be able to run games like FO4 and TitanFall 2 on ultra settings?
  • takeshi7
    2497723 said:
    TAKESHI7 yes it's enough, IDK where you heard that you need 3gb or VRAM.


    Multiple sources say you need 3GB VRAM
    http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4457/~/preview-of-4k-uhd-netflix-content-on-nvidia-gpus
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/3193566/components-graphics/nvidia-quietly-opens-4k-netflix-streaming-on-geforce-gtx-10-series-graphics-cards.html

    It's pretty stupid because that means you have to spend twice as much to get a 1050 Ti minimum.
  • zcat
    Can't wait to swap out my miniITX's old 750Ti with a true successor that's twice as powerful at the same bus-powered max of 60W.
  • mikegrok
    I am going to be installing a bunch of these into a dental office as soon as stocks get better. Dental offices have 2 monitors per computer (usually using the gti 720). One for work, and one to show Netflix, and distract the patients. The computers have CPUs that don't accelerate h265, and the 1000 series nvidia GPUs accelerate the current video codecs.
  • Kuo Ping
    got this card for months and really love it for LOL.
  • caamsa
    Wow things must be slow in the world of computer hardware.
  • Wisecracker
    Almost makes me wish I had a shelf full of 750 TIs ...

    I know I'm going way out on a limb here, but I'm thinking the Raven Ridge APUs are going to slide rather nicely into these charts -- except for that sometime-ugly DX11 thing that bites 'em in the rear.

    I'm also thinking that's why the RXs haven't dropped in price, or in some cases, gone up. It gives room to slash prices (they do like to brawl at certain price points) before they blow-up the low-end product stack with the RR APU.

    It also seems to me that the 'stars' may finally be aligning for dual graphics (after all these years!) ... DX12, Vulkan, fast DDR4 with specific addressable memory space, Free-Sync, CCX fabric, and all those 'nCUs' pulling together (with decent drivers!) could be knockin' some slobber ...

    Or ... maybe not :lol:
  • ledhead11
    I'd actually be interested in a comparison between one of these and a 7xxx high end Intel CPU w/ integrated. Seems to me the gap is getting much smaller.
  • 10tacle
    "CONS -
    Trails AMD's Radeon RX 550 in DX12/Vulkan-based games"


    The RX 550 also starts at $90 and can run up to $120 (USD) depending on variant, putting it right into the pricing bull's eye of the faster 750Ti and even faster yet 2GB RX 460 on the used market. Also someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 550 not available in small form factor?
  • Mojazz
    2241107 said:
    Will this work with a core I7 7700k? And would it be able to run games like FO4 and TitanFall 2 on ultra settings?


    Lol
  • IInuyasha74
    I'm fairly disappointed this this GPU. I just feel Nvidia crippled the card too much by sticking it with a 64-bit memory bus. I in general hate to see components held back by RAM limitations, because it is an artificial limitation placed on the core due to inadequate bandwidth.

    GDDR5 isn't as expensive as it used to be, however, so hopefully an OEM will produce one with faster vRAM.
  • SteelCity1981
    i don't know what some of you are seeing but the 1030 is not better than the 750 Ti. in fact it trails behind the 750 Ti in everything and in some things by a nice margin.
  • caamsa
    409959 said:
    i don't know what some of you are seeing but the 1030 is not better than the 750 Ti. in fact it trails behind the 750 Ti in almost everything and in some things by a nice margin.


    I was thinking the same thing. It is on par with the 750 but not the 750 Ti. If you go on YouTube there are a lot of benchmarks of these low end cards pitted against other low end cards. Not to knock Toms but I have found a lot of great review sources on YouTube.
  • 80-watt Hamster
    202972 said:
    "CONS -
    Trails AMD's Radeon RX 550 in DX12/Vulkan-based games"
    The RX 550 also starts at $90 and can run up to $120 (USD) depending on variant, putting it right into the pricing bull's eye of the faster 750Ti and even faster yet 2GB RX 460 on the used market. Also someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 550 not available in small form factor?


    There's at least one low-profile variant of the 550 available (from MSI), though it's got a double-slot cooler on it. You're right about pricing, though; it was supposed to trade at $80, and really needs to be closer to $70 to compete with the 1030. As it stands now, there's hardly any reason to choose a 550 over a 560 or GTX 1050, which can both be had for not much north of $100. Putting it up against used pricing is a little unfair, though.
  • King_V
    Agreed. The R7 250E/7750, which is a 55W part, was made available in single-slot low profile, there's no excuse for the RX 550, which draws a few less watts than that, to have a similar solution.

    EDIT: Also, given that the GTX 750 and GTX 750 Ti have a TDP of 55 and 60W respectively, likewise, there doesn't seem to be any good reason for a single-slot cooling solution on a low-profile card for them, either. Had there been, I likely would've purchased one of those cards in lieu of the somewhat difficult to find 250E/7750 single-slot-low-profile.


    Also agreed that the higher end Intel Integrated graphics (is it called the 630?) might make an interesting comparison, though I can't argue with the fact that it's unlikely that someone with a high-end modern Intel CPU would be playing in the low-end graphics market.

    I'm really looking forward to the update in the hierarchy chart, not just to see where exactly they place the 1030, but to see if other's in surrounding tiers get shuffled slightly. Based on its current position in the chart, I would've assumed the RX550 would've performed worse than it did here.
  • daglesj
    I think its time the 64bit bus was done away with.
  • Nintendork
    RX550 for just $20 more destroys that joke of a dGPU.

    RX560 4GB is still the thing you should buy.
  • Nintendork
    The best thing of buying a passive <100w gpu is using a 120mm 800-1000rpm fan on top of it. Ridiculous temps with that.
  • King_V
    The 1030 is still worthwhile as a card if you're limited to a single-slot-height cooler AND low profile card. The 550, I think, should be available in such a form factor, but isn't. Likewise the 750Ti should have been available like this, but wasn't.
  • why_wolf
    Should be a great little card for office PCs that can't use onboard video or need some multi monitor support.