Nvidia Announces Three Versions of GeForce GT 730

Status
Not open for further replies.

dgingeri

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2009
2,123
1
20,460
212
It sounds like the 96 core version is still the old Fermi (GT630 D5 and G5) while the 384 core versions are the Kepler version (GT 630 Kepler.) It also sounds a lot like relabeling the old GT630 for the GT730. Not a big surprise there.
 

dstarr3

Honorable
Mar 18, 2014
1,527
0
11,960
52
Really think they should have made this fanless. Tiny little fans like those always make the worst racket.

That being said, I can't wait for EVGA's FTW version with 2GB and the ACX cooler.
 

derekullo

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2009
2,258
16
20,465
241
All 3 of these cards are the same card in that they all will play games equally bad.
I know this is not what the cards are made for, but Nvidia is hoping grandma will pay an extra $30 for a "prettier" display.
And while underhanded does make sense economically.
What does not make sense is why give 1 of those cards 2 gigabytes of ram when it has no reason to have 2 gigabytes of ram. Any game you try to play besides DOS games will run at super low fps without anti-aliasing. Nvidia could shave $20 bucks or so off the price or even just pocket it rather than give the card 2 gigabytes of ram.
 

Jeffrey H

Reputable
Mar 4, 2014
35
0
4,530
0
Well also most boards right now can only support PCIe 2.0 as of this date, mine included since I have the GT 620 as well, but the issue right now is that in this economy, most people can't afford another $200 for a board with PCIe 3.0 and a higher end Video Card, the Economy is still not perfect in these times.
 

extide

Honorable
Jan 20, 2014
7
0
10,510
0
They are all going to be similar performance levels. THe 96 shader version is an older Fermi based GPU, so it has the "Hot Clocks" where as the 384 core versions are going to be Kepler based and not have the "Hot Clocks"

This type of gig is pretty common on the low end SKU's, especially in mobile.
 

Chris Droste

Honorable
May 29, 2013
275
0
10,810
14
i wouldn't even stick this in a machine to support an extra monitor these days
maybe 3-4 years ago when USB display adapters were hokey black magic but in a world with $120 750s and $140 750Ti's and even a few hot deals on something like an old stock 7770, this is really just...profit bait?
 

knowom

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2006
777
0
18,990
1
You could get a 260GTX or similar graphics card for about $20's on Ebay that would beat the piss out of this. I really don't see the point of it especially since it'll probably be priced at around $30-$40's.
 

fixxxer113

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2011
296
0
18,810
22
All 3 of these cards are the same card in that they all will play games equally bad.
I know this is not what the cards are made for, but Nvidia is hoping grandma will pay an extra $30 for a "prettier" display.
And while underhanded does make sense economically.
What does not make sense is why give 1 of those cards 2 gigabytes of ram when it has no reason to have 2 gigabytes of ram. Any game you try to play besides DOS games will run at super low fps without anti-aliasing. Nvidia could shave $20 bucks or so off the price or even just pocket it rather than give the card 2 gigabytes of ram.
I think the 2GB thing, is because of people that still look at graphics cards only in terms of how much memory they carry... I'm sure they overcharge for it so they make some more money off the ignorance of some consumers.
 

Alter-iGo

Reputable
Jun 25, 2014
3
0
4,510
0
It is cheaper to buy those cards instead of buying extra RAM in situation where you dont want to shere system memory with your iGPU.
It is relevant to those who picture/movie editing (for hobby, not pro`s) where more RAM is always welcome. in some situation you can also slight accelerate the edit by utilizing the GPU to render.
it is also somewhat lower the CPU usage (no iGPU).
It can also give life to old systems that cant handle HD content when using the proper codecs.

but no question - 2GB and this tiny fan is unnecessary. 1GB and fanless design is the way to go with those little brothers.
 

coffeecoffee

Distinguished
Dec 1, 2009
331
0
18,810
13
Eh... As Derek has mentioned. These cards don't make much sense due to the amount of ram (2GB). These cards would do just as well with 1GB (Possibly even 512MB) since their main purpose is to provide users with premium basic graphics capability. Can't say I'm surprised in the least since Nvidia likes to play mind games with consumers that aren't very tech savvy. Hopefully these will be around the $50 USD mark (after manufacturer's rebate).
 

Jeffrey H

Reputable
Mar 4, 2014
35
0
4,530
0


Well knowing Novuake and alextheblue seem to say that people who stick to low end Video Cards like the GT Series"Are Weak" in terms of it since most people would want to go to stuff that Renders "Realistic 3D" which is what everyone is trying to get to, in turn it also would work Extremely Well on VR Equipment, but in terms of money, well I myself am not a Greedy person to buy Super High End Video Cards that too too much power, let alone have a A Higher Electric Bill.

And if people still Vote me down for this, then I figure that Wasting Electricity seems to be the new thing with Computers, like the old days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS