Worst Graphics Card Ever? GT 1030 DDR4 Benchmarked

Do we not regularly chastise people for not looking at what they are buying? Not here, though. The box specifies it uses SDDR4 instead of GDDR5. It is literally listed in the specs and on the box. They aren't hiding it..

When you charge the same for a vastly inferior card where most people won't know the difference, yes that is underhanded.

I dont care if AMD did it too. It's wrong no matter whom is doing this.
 
One thing that I noticed.... the 1030 GDDR version is about the performance equivalent of a 460 card that I had from 2010-2014. I wonder if the 1030 DDR3 version is about the same as the 8800 GTS 320MB from 2007....
 
When you charge the same for a vastly inferior card where most people won't know the difference, yes that is underhanded.
I dont care if AMD did it too. It's wrong no matter whom is doing this.

The other problem with this variant is that it sucks, it's just not worth spending money on even for a shoestring budget gamer.
 
Did I strike a nerve? Fanboy much? It simply just left a bad taste in my mouth because I fell for it.
The only thing that struck a nerve would be the level of ignorance it would take to never buy an Nvidia card again just because the MX 440 was basically a 3 Series card and at the same time ignore anything that ATI/AMD have done over the years.
 
giphy.gif
 
PREFACE: This is wrong, and NVidia should say something. But I don't put the blame squarely on them.

Companies have been doing this on low-end cards for a long time. Like the guy said in the video, they used to call cut-rate cards 'SE' or 'LE' cards, but salespeople in CompUSA would skip right over explaining what the 'SE' meant.

It's possible that NVidia isn't the only person to blame. NVidia probably comes out with a spec sheet on their processors that lists all the possible power, RAM, tracing and cooling specifications for each chip, like other companies do for almost all ARM phone chips. There's no mention of what has to be on the board - in fact, portions of the chip can even be bypassed. I would be surprised if 'SDDR4' wasn't listed as a possible RAM on NVidia's manufacture sheet. And I wouldn't put it past a Chinese company to crank out a few thousand cheapo video cards, and I wouldn't put it past a wholesaler importing a bunch of those cards and trying to pass them off at full price. Bizness is bizness.

If you think about it, manufacturers aren't allowed to give a video card a special 'NVidia' name when they overclock a 1080 ti card; they're all just 1080 ti cards, with varying prices and abilities. From NVidia's standpoint, if company paid for a 1030 chip, and there is a 1030 chip on the card, then the company is allowed to call it a 1030 card.
 
You think so? I am pretty disappointed in it. I would be willing to pay more for something closer to 580 performance.

i mean that would really negate the use of any of amd's gpus of that level if they had that kind of gpu on a cpu.

also gddr5 frame buffer would have to be built in to boards and the power delivery for the cpu would have to be really beefed up.

i think this is a classic case of you get what you pay for.

but you bought a 1030.

not some 1020 oh that's right same name and all.
 
This is right up there with how they were switching some mobile gpus while listing the same sku recently.
 
Looks like an overpriced htpc card to me that’s not meant for gaming.
 
If you think about it, manufacturers aren't allowed to give a video card a special 'NVidia' name when they overclock a 1080 ti card; they're all just 1080 ti cards, with varying prices and abilities.

But these cards have a baseline, you don't swap out the memory for something totally inferior to the baseline and halve the performance. Cards in this price range are a much different market, the consumer is well informed and that kind of component degradation at this price simply wouldn't fly.
 
This is because review sites don't update their old benchmarks, and both AMD and Nvidia take advantage of this. Nvidia with the 6GB vs 3GB 1060, and now this DDR4 1030. When I google GT 1030 benchmarks, I get an old review from Toms Hardware, which has not been updated to include the DDR4 version, and never will.

We need to hold review sites to a higher standard cause this is a practice that both companies will do. AMD suffers from outdated drivers in these benchmarks, so the RX 580 is more to show off the driver tweaks than to show off the slight overclock.
 
Just built 3 systems with this card as they are using 2700X and didn't have an igpu. They are mainly for 2D and video acceleration. But still feels like they weren't worth the asking price now.
 
The fail happened when crypto mining wasn't optimized for this shitty card.

Imagine the profit Nvidia could have made selling these in 20 packs to the miners.
 
Because it is misleading as hell. Even I would have missed that. It's like ordering a $50,000 Corvette to discover it's a turbo 4 hidden inside a larger v8 package with no announcement from Chevy about a spec change.
Except it would say it had a turbo 4 on the window sticker and in the order bank, just like the box for this says DDR4.
 
Its really as simple as knowing GTX good, GT bad. There's been a GT930, GT 730, and GT630, that I know of, and probably plenty more, and they've all been garbage for gaming.

That said, I have a fanless GT630 in my HTPC and have had no problems with it, for what it does.

https://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt-630/specifications

Note the DDR3 on the "highest end" version, and that there's 3 different versions. This isn't new for Nvidia, they've been doing it for a long long time, gamers don't know because they go for GTX cards. Yet, its fine for a HTPC. So this guy's DDR4 card is definitely not the worst card released in the past decade. That title probably belongs to some laptop with an M version of some crap GT card.
 
Last edited:
should've called it the GT1010. I didn't know any card could be way slower than a 1030, but yet, there it is, the numbers don't lie.
 
Naming the same is one thing, like the GTX 1060 which comes in two versions. But the 1060 3GB and 6GB versions have TWO different prices. The fact in this case is of pure deception where the DDR4 version is massively overpriced. Is Nvidia really saving that much $$ by going this route?
 
Didn't they already do this with GTX 1060?
Sure, it's not the same drastic performance loss, but the base idea is the same.
GTX 1060 6gb is about 5% faster than GTX 1060 3gb - which is often using lower quality (Hynix) memory.
Sure, this is disguisting from Nvidia, but they have done it before and got away with it.
 
Didn't they already do this with GTX 1060?
Sure, it's not the same drastic performance loss, but the base idea is the same.
GTX 1060 6gb is about 5% faster than GTX 1060 3gb - which is often using lower quality (Hynix) memory.
Sure, this is disguisting from Nvidia, but they have done it before and got away with it.
Maybe bother to look at the post that is right in front of you? It is NOT the same thing as the 1060 3gb is much cheaper than the 1060 6gb. Also the 1060 6gb is less than 10% faster so you are actully getting more card for your money with the 3gb model. The 1030 gddr5 is TWICE as fast as the 1030 ddr4 and both cards cost basically the same.

If you really need some perspective on this, it would be like having a 1080 ti version with the performance of a 1060.
 
I don't know anyone that supports the idea of RX 560 14CU vs 16CU or the cut down 1060 3GB, or the underclocked MX150, or the 3.5GB 970, but Nvidia has taken this to another level.

If they called this a 1020 and gave it 3/4GB of DDR4 it could be a viable 4k streaming GPU. But only if its price was significantly lower as well.

An OC'd GDDR5 1030 is actually a pretty nice budget card.

I do want Nvidia to be pressured to rename this GPU.
 
Maybe bother to look at the post that is right in front of you? It is NOT the same thing as the 1060 3gb is much cheaper than the 1060 6gb. Also the 1060 6gb is less than 10% faster so you are actully getting more card for your money with the 3gb model. The 1030 gddr5 is TWICE as fast as the 1030 ddr4 and both cards cost basically the same.

If you really need some perspective on this, it would be like having a 1080 ti version with the performance of a 1060.

If it's the same price, don't buy the 3gb version then?
The problem solved itself.

5% is actually less than 10%?
1080Ti is 250% of 1060 6gb performance.

What is your point with that post with so much weird information?
 
If it's the same price, don't buy the 3gb version then?
The problem solved itself.

5% is actually less than 10%?
1080Ti is 250% of 1060 6gb performance.

What is your point with that post with so much weird information?
He was making an analogy and a comparison.
The point isn't that the GT 1030 SDDR4 version is so much slower than the GT 1030 GDDR5 version, it is that NVIDIA is selling the GT 1030 SDDR4 version for the exact same price as the original GT 1030 GDDR5 version, even though it runs at a fraction of the speed and it is labeled as the same model.

It is more NVIDIA being deceitful than anything else on this, mainly just to save money on selling a much lesser GPU as the higher performing original GPU which is no longer offered.
 
Remember the ATI 9200SE? That was 32bit memory goodness... sold probably 300 of those suckers.

Was good enough to load half-life 2 and that was about it.. had a lot of repeat customers coming in for the 9600’s.
 
Oh dear, this stinks !! Can't think what Nvidia is thinking about with this product.
 
1070/1080 is for 1440p gaming, 1080Ti is more of a 4k card and is 250% faster than 1060 at 4k.
Ok I will give you that it is closer to 2.5 x at 4k but AGAIN that was NOT the POINT of the analogy and I already told you that. I will change the analogy to the 1080 having a version that was no faster than 1060 performance but was still priced like the other 1080s. Does that help you now? I am guessing no considering you still cant comprehend how the 1060 situation was nothing like this. In that situation you had two cards with very different price points and the 3gb actually was a better value than the 1060 6gb. With the 1030 though we have cards with the same name at basically the same price yet one is TWICE as fast as the other.
 
Last edited:
Ok I will give you that it is closer to 2.5 x at 4k but AGAIN that was NOT the POINT of the analogy and I already told you that. I will change the analogy to the 1080 having a version that was no faster than 1060 performance but was still priced like the other 1080s. Does that help you now? I am guessing no considering you still cant comprehend how the 1060 situation was nothing like this. In that situation you had two cards with theat very different price points and the 3gb actually was a better value than the 1060 6gb. With the 1030 though we have cards with the same name at basically the same price yet one is TWICE as fast as the other.

I would understand if there was a way not to distinguish these two 1030 cards. But there is. It's ultimately up to the customer if they want to spend the same amount of money for an inferior card.
 
Remember the ATI 9200SE? That was 32bit memory goodness... sold probably 300 of those suckers.

Was good enough to load half-life 2 and that was about it.. had a lot of repeat customers coming in for the 9600’s.
I do remember those, and actually traded an older ATI 7000 for a 9200SE - maybe gained 3fps in most games back then, haha.
Don't miss that one at all!
 
I would understand if there was a way not to distinguish these two 1030 cards. But there is. It's ultimately up to the customer if they want to spend the same amount of money for an inferior card.
Might want to re-read through this thread on a few good counter-arguments to that statement you are making there. ;)
You are correct, one can distinguish between them, but considering they cost the exact same and are labeled the exact same, NVIDIA is really pushing their limits on consumer ignorance and flat-out deception, which is showing their anti-consumer and anti-competitive nature even further.
 
Back
Top