Worst Graphics Card Ever? GT 1030 DDR4 Benchmarked

GotNoRice said:
What about if people just want a cheap HTPC card that has HDMI 2.0b (can do 60Hz @4K, etc) and hardware decoding of HEVC/H.265/x265? Does it really matter what kind of ram the card uses as long as it brings the price down? Anything less than a Sandy Bridge CPU will often struggle trying to software decode 4K HEVC/H.265/x265, so buying a card like this can extend the life of an older Core2 or first generation i5/i7 HTPC significantly.

I do feel that it would be better off sold as a GT 1020 or something like that instead.
Click to expand...

Because it is marketed as a game ready card and is only $10 cheaper than the 1030 gddr card right next to it but is about 1/3rd the performance. Nvidia typicaly doesnt have such a gap within the same series number. This is the watering down that people are saying. What is to stop them from making a 1080 that is out performed by a 1050 but is slightly cheaper? It is making it more confusing to try and grab sales from the uninformed.
 
How is this any different than the different bit-bus's?

I am not a gpu guru, and understand just enough to keep myself out of trouble.
 
cyclone3d said:
They have.. but they have never used a same exact model number for two cards at massively different performance levels.

Now the OEMs have done this with AMD stuff.. but they do that with pretty much all hardware that they special order... like the RX580 cards that were really just renamed RX480 cards. Besides that, most hardware stuck in OEM systems generally just have lower default clocks than retail cards.
Click to expand...
Maybe pay attention to the context, his comment was about never using an Nvidia card again because of the MX 440 "fiasco".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zuul
like this
heatlesssun said:
It's a significantly lower performing card with no branding difference. This practice has been universally condemned over the years as it's just plain confusing for consumers when all that's required is a different brand name. It's the exact opposite of the supposed transparency that GPP was to bring to the consumer. The only purpose for stuff like this is to increase margins.
Click to expand...

If they don’t know they are bring taken, is it that big of a deal for us perdonally? Happens all the time right? We should not like it sure, and vote with our wallet and inform, but there are also a lot of bigger things to worry about.
 
I can imagine this leaving a sour taste into those trying to get into pc gaming, but Steve makes a good point about retailers getting fed up with this as well.

We imagine that those ordering these gpus for companies like newegg are ultra tech-savy, but that is not exactly the case. Even if they were, the are mass dozens of models from several manufacures through a giant spread sheet of model numbers.

I cant imagine they are too pleased when they discover they have to dump hundreds of these cards to loyal buyers as they missed a very small model variation.
 
rgMekanic said:
Or just slap everyone with a 5 year NDA
Click to expand...
I worked for Activision years ago and had to sign basically a lifetime NDA for everything I did and saw there. Maybe it's just an industry in which trade secrets are worth more than the product produced. Or maybe it's just corporate relationships... (read between the lines)

I think it's shitty that they do this, but it's been a practice used by both red and green on the very low end forever. To over-exaggerate and act like this is something completely new just stinks of bias, but...
 
Darunion said:
Because it is marketed as a game ready card and is only $10 cheaper than the 1030 gddr card right next to it but is about 1/3rd the performance. Nvidia typicaly doesnt have such a gap within the same series number. This is the watering down that people are saying. What is to stop them from making a 1080 that is out performed by a 1050 but is slightly cheaper? It is making it more confusing to try and grab sales from the uninformed.
Click to expand...

It is indeed very close in price but with lower end cards every few dollars make a difference. I do feel it should have started lower in price but like I said earlier it will still work for low end gaming. It is possible that NV spec calls for some minimum VRAM type, then it's up to AIB to build or modify as they want. Possibly a shortage or high cost of GDDR5 demandeded creation of this handicap version. I recall back when I was replacing dead video card in my old HTPC with a GT630 it was same business, they had DDR2 and DDR3 models for a very marginal difference but overall performance was quite high. Possible at low end they don't bother too much about model tiers are generally people don't really game on these, maybe for kids or older/basic gaming. Clearly it's not marketed to high end gaming.
 
This is silly.

The GT1030 is great for some purposes. High end gaming obviously is not one of those.

I added one to my HTPC in order to allow hardware decode of HEVC, and it is doing pretty well this far.

Only problem is that hardware decode is limited to 8bit encodes :/

That being said, I really wish Nvidia would end the practice of marketing different products under the same name. That really is deceptive.
 
Last edited:
_l_ said:
too bad the GTX 970 mem spec deception was closed already but it could maybe be used to set a legal precedence?
Click to expand...

Prior behavior is very important in proving intent. Nv (like many companies) have a documented history of misrepresentation, the 970 being a recent prominent one. This is why companies settle rather than go to court where there is a likelihood of a jury assigning additional penalties as punishment for bad behavior.
 
Red Falcon said:
I remember NVIDIA did this with GPUs years ago.
Back in 2007, when the NVIDIA Series 8 8500GT was brand new, there was the 'normal' 256MB GDDR3 version, and then there was a 'high-memory' 512MB GDDR2 version.

Both GPUs were labeled as being an 8500GT, but the memory specifications, and performance differences, even back then, were very apparent.
This isn't a new tactic by NVIDIA at all, but I am glad that they are finally being called on this bullshit.

I agree with the guy in the video, they should have called it the GT 1020, or GT 1030 SE, or something to signify the difference - not just call it the *exact* same thing.
Transparent, ha! What a laugh, NVIDIA.
Click to expand...

Hell I remember when AMD pulled the same shit with x1600...with gddr3 and gddr2 memory. So what? Both teams are being shit companies when thy are in the lead. That's a hard fucked (read it fact).
 
_l_ said:
too bad the GTX 970 mem spec deception was closed already but it could maybe be used to set a legal precedence?
Click to expand...
I don't think so, as it was a settlement and part of terms is that nvidia admits no wrong doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _l_
like this
The same thing happened when AMD crippled the HD 4670 with normal DDR3, which cut performance in half.

Almost all the shipping models of the card were DDR3, though the review units were all GDDR3/4.

This is standard cost-reductions in the industry. GDDR5 is suddenly really fucking expensive again, so they want to find something cheaper.

They used to pull the same shit with GDDR2 on low-end cards.
 
Last edited:
defaultluser said:
The same thing happened when AMD crippled the HD 4670 with normal DDR3, which cut performance in half.

Almost all the shipping models of the card were DDR3, though the review units were all GDDR3/4.

This is standard cost-reductions in the industry. GDDR5 is suddenly really fucking expensive again, so they want to find something cheaper.
Click to expand...
You are completely misrepresenting that situation. The 512 mb models of the 4670 had gddr3 and the 1 gb models were regular ddr3. There was no bait and switch with reviewers getting gddr3 and most model shipping with ddr3 like you are saying. Nor was the ddr3 model severely crippled in performance compared to the gddr3 model. In fact the actual bandwidth was very close between the models.
 
Last edited:
Darkswordz said:
Why can't they just run an HONEST business and still continue to make money? Come on Nvidia....you're better than this.
Click to expand...

nVidia has been doing this kind of thing for decades. Geforce MX 2 / MX 4 anyone? 64 bit and 128 bit versions, among many other examples. I remember having forum discussions with teenagers saving up for a card for their PC only to find out afterwards it was garbage in the Battlefield 1942 / Vietnam days. Honesty hasn't really ever been a part of nVidia's low-end part corporate strategy, and I don't think we can ever expect that to change.
 
DTabakov said:
Hell I remember when AMD pulled the same shit with x1600...with gddr3 and gddr2 memory. So what? Both teams are being shit companies when thy are in the lead. That's a hard fucked (read it fact).
Click to expand...
Only one slight correction on that: When ATI was making the X1000 series, they weren't quite owned yet by AMD, so on that one, it is really ATI to blame. ;)
You are right, though, AMD has done this as well, it is just that NVIDIA is really going to great lengths on this one, especially since the price is exactly the same, and that is something that companies have not done before, especially with such a stinker of a card.
 
zkostik said:
Yeah, it does suck hard but I wouldn't call it a scam as they do clearly identify specs on the box. I however find it disappointing that price is the same as GDDR5 version, usually for models with crappier VRAM you pay less like to casual workstation or HTPC setup. These cost apparently same as GDDR5 which is odd to say the least...
Click to expand...

Almost like it's some sort of ........ scam?

:nailbiting:
 
Theory I heard was it having something to do with switching chip vendors when it comes to low end cards. Not sure if there is any truth too it.
 
Its hilarious to see the nVidia supporters here. Absolutely as hilarious as watching the AMD supporters and their mental gymnastics over the last few years. This is a fact.

This product is undoubtedly bullshit, 50% the performance of the 1030, marginally cheaper, same name, small logo on the corner that says DDR4 as opposed to GDDR5. This is misrepresentation at its finest, and if you defend it, you deserve a really good ass kicking. There is a difference between expecting people to know their product and do basic research and cramming a shit in a box and calling it the same thing as chocolate with a shit in the corner.

I generally sit on the fence and go for premium product, brand loyalty is for chumps and losers, people who can't and really shouldn't have free will.

That all being said, nVidia's reprehensible behavior over the last year has this performance chaser seriously considering the runner up.
 
Red Falcon said:
Only one slight correction on that: When ATI was making the X1000 series, they weren't quite owned yet by AMD, so on that one, it is really ATI to blame. ;)
You are right, though, AMD has done this as well, it is just that NVIDIA is really going to great lengths on this one, especially since the price is exactly the same, and that is something that companies have not done before, especially with such a stinker of a card.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my bad on that one. I remember the case because I had 6600 GT with 128mb GDDR3 which was fried by my first real overclock. The AGP voltage was raised without me noticing and it fried the card. However, I was working in a Computer Store at the time and the guys pushed my RMA without a problem..until it turned out they don't have 6600GT anymore and they told me "well we can change it for an ATI X1600 Pro" which was 256 GDDR3 at the time...until I got the 512 GDDR2 :D
 
zkostik said:
Yeah, it does suck hard but I wouldn't call it a scam as they do clearly identify specs on the box. I however find it disappointing that price is the same as GDDR5 version, usually for models with crappier VRAM you pay less like to casual workstation or HTPC setup. These cost apparently same as GDDR5 which is odd to say the least...
Click to expand...

This is definitely set up as a scam. Like it is blatantly made to take advantage of either rushed or/and tech unaware people. If the price was much lower, we could understand it. But it isn't. I don't care what kind of car analogies people bring into this, because it's not like it should be a freaking race to the bottom in company ethics. Like "shame on you, you got fooled" isn't valid justification when it is practically set up to fool. Just because others do it does not make it right.
 
Shame on you, Scan.co.uk...

scan_1030.png
 
Mugato said:
If they don’t know they are bring taken, is it that big of a deal for us perdonally? Happens all the time right? We should not like it sure, and vote with our wallet and inform, but there are also a lot of bigger things to worry about.
Click to expand...

Also, if they don't like it, or find out, can't you return it? How many will be returned before Nvidia "gets" it. Depends on if anyone even notices.
 
I am still wondering if this is a nVidia call or the AIB's one?

Just thinking about it...
 
DTabakov said:
I am still wondering if this is a nVidia call or the AIB's one?

Just thinking about it...
Click to expand...

I've seen the same DDR4 card from multiple vendors. It's unlikely they all decided the same thing. Usually you will go to the next highest if all on the current level are the same.
 
Mister E said:
I smell a class action lawsuit.
Click to expand...

It is stated in the specs, ignorance does not win lawsuits.

auntjemima said:
I've seen the same DDR4 card from multiple vendors. It's unlikely they all decided the same thing. Usually you will go to the next highest if all on the current level are the same.
Click to expand...

Yeah, when I looked around I also saw different vendors. But it still brings lots of questions. For example if nVidia shoved this to the AIB's why they didn't called foul? It works the same way around. It's like the debacle of different versions of nVidia card in laptops/notebooks ...
 
Maybe someone has already mentioned it here or elsewhere, but how does this thing stack up against some of the mobile ARM chips in mobiles? I mean, I often see various ARM solutions mentioning DX comparisons so playing by NV's rules how do they compare to something that runs off a battery?
 
Uvaman2 said:
Question, can't you at least make that ddr4 a bit faster or with more channels or some shit?
Click to expand...
The SDDR4 is rated at 1050MHz stock and runs at 16.8GB/s.
If you compare that to standard single-channel (64-bit) DDR4 running at 2133MHz (MT/s) (PC4-17000) which runs at around 17GB/s, it can roughly be assumed that they are also running their SDDR4 VRAM in a single-channel configuration, as 1050MHz x2 would run at 2100MHz which is roughly ~16.8GB/s.

My guess is they are sticking with the 64-bit bus in order to save on costs, as moving to a 128-bit dual-channel configuration (assuming "SDDR4" is anything like DDR4) would increase costs.
That would be counter-productive to NVIDIA's margins on this GPU since they have already come this far to screw everyone over on saving costs - on their part that is, certainly not the consumers'.

That is such an incredible bottleneck for *any* discrete GPU in the last 10 years, even the bottom-end models.
The mid-range NVIDIA Series 6 6600GT, which ran with 128MB of GDDR3, still managed 16GB/s - you know, back in 2004... :eek:
 
"We realize nVidia aren't going to be too happy with this video and we won't be surprised if we don't receive samples from there next generation gpu launch. Be a real shame if that is the case, but if it is not the end of the world. We'll just have to by the gpu's ourselves."

I find this quote from the video quite annoying. Sound's like he's wanting everyone to pat him on the back and sing his praises. Almost like he's saying, "I threw myself on this grenade as I won't be getting any more review boards from nVidia. But hey, that's ok because we got you the story." Came across as a little attention hungry.

There was no need to mention possibly not getting any more review GPU's from nVidia unless it actually happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top