News Pascal Rides Again, Nvidia Launches the GeForce GT 1010

[Admin]

Nvidia quietly releases a new Pascal part, the GT 1010 to replace the Kepler based GT 710

Pascal Rides Again, Nvidia Launches the GeForce GT 1010 : Read more

 

[hannibal]

Well the hoped low cost GPU every one has waited for

 

[athletics]

a bunch of blah.... is it hdmi 2.1 or hdmi 2.0?that is the only thing worth mentioning

 

[Flayed]

Could be a handy placeholder for a 3080 or 6800XT

 

[watzupken]

To be honest, I don't find this card meaningful unless it is significantly cheaper than the GT 1030.

 

[InvalidError]

To be honest, I don't find this card meaningful unless it is significantly cheaper than the GT 1030.

If Nvidia is offering it, it likely is because there is enough demand from OEMs and corporate buyers for a direct GT710 successor to warrant it. Most of the market for this sort of ultra-budget GPUs is for desktop/office use and a GT1030 would be wasted on those since they aren't going to be used for anything beyond trivial 3D. In many cases, these are only used to drive additional display outputs.

 

[Stardude82]

Supply is tight everywhere for everything. Tons of old legacy motherboards with no video out or CPUs with no video out. Not surprised if a substantial fraction find themselves in 5950x machines.

 

[Endymio]

Most of the market for this sort of ultra-budget GPUs is for desktop/office use...

Any OEM builder would get higher performance at a much lower cost by using AMD's integrated graphics on their 3000 "g" series. I imagine the primary market here is, as @Stardude82 says, older legacy motherboards. It might find its way into some ultra-budget Intel machines as well.

 

[Zescion]

We'll see what scalpers will do this time

 

[InvalidError]

I imagine the primary market here is, as @Stardude82 says, older legacy motherboards.

Unless Nvidia puts legacy BIOS support on the GT1010, it will be useless on non-UEFI motherboards, especially those that don't have some form of on-board graphics to handle boot.

 

[Endymio]

Unless Nvidia puts legacy BIOS support on the GT1010, it will be useless on non-UEFI motherboards, especially those that don't have some form of on-board graphics to handle boot.

AFAIK, all the 710 boards support both bios and UEFI. Why wouldn't the 1010 also, given its intent as a direct upgrade?

 

[InvalidError]

AFAIK, all the 710 boards support both bios and UEFI. Why wouldn't the 1010 also, given its intent as a direct upgrade?

Not necessarily an 'upgrade' more like a replacement: to continue making GT710s, Nvidia needs to buy 28nm wafers from somewhere. Replacing that SKU with GT1010 means Nvidia can drop 28nm, streamline its supply chain and likely reduce its overall costs.

 

[Endymio]

Replacing that SKU with GT1010 means Nvidia can drop 28nm, streamline its supply chain and likely reduce its overall costs.

All the more reason to assume bios support, no?

 

[spongiemaster]

Any OEM builder would get higher performance at a much lower cost by using AMD's integrated graphics on their 3000 "g" series. I imagine the primary market here is, as @Stardude82 says, older legacy motherboards. It might find its way into some ultra-budget Intel machines as well.

As InvalidError mentioned, the primary use for this is probably for adding ports to OEM systems. We have a number of Dell desktops at our company that came with cheap fanless AMD add in cards just to add VGA ports that the system didn't have onboard. Not everyone likes using adapters and Dell systems for a while only had onboard DP ports. They've started adding HDMI ports, but if someone still needs VGA or DVI ports, a cheap addin card is the easiest option.

 

[Endymio]

As InvalidError mentioned, the primary use for this is probably for adding ports to OEM systems. We have a number of Dell desktops at our company that came with cheap fanless AMD add in cards just to add VGA ports

For multi-monitor support, sure. I can see these being used for people wanting tri- and quad-monitor support --- but that's a niche market.

I seriously have to question the economics of adding a $50 graphics card just to avoid either (a) using a $3 adaptor, or (b) getting an entirely new monitor for $100.

 

[spongiemaster]

I seriously have to question the economics of adding a $50 graphics card just to avoid either (a) using a $3 adaptor, or (b) getting an entirely new monitor for $100.

I can assure you, the adapters aren't $3 from Dell. If you're ordering dozens or hundreds of systems, you're going to go with the easiest option from one vendor, which isn't always going to be the cheapest.

 

[InvalidError]

For multi-monitor support, sure. I can see these being used for people wanting tri- and quad-monitor support --- but that's a niche market.

Just like a modern GPU with legacy BIOS support for 10+ years old machine - even more niche than needing 3+ monitors when motherboards don't support more than two outputs since the third IGP output is LVDS for an integrated monitor.

OEM systems are likely a larger niche by orders of magnitude than people wanting to upgrade 30W GPU in an ancient PC.

 

[Endymio]

OEM systems are likely a larger niche by orders of magnitude than people wanting to upgrade 30W GPU in an ancient PC.

Oh, certainly. But what OEM would choose this card over the much cheaper and faster option of AMD's Vega 11 IG? Or even Intel's cheaper and nearly as fast UHD 630?

For adding additional ports-- sure. For upgrading older legacy machines-- sure. But as the standard display adaptor? How many major OEMs are still offering GT710 based solutions today?

 

[Endymio]

If you're ordering dozens or hundreds of systems, you're going to go with the easiest option from one vendor, which isn't always going to be the cheapest.

Which is why I questioned the economics of the choice. Certainly there are lazy IT procurement managers placing orders, but wasting $50 to avoid upgrading a decade-old $100 monitor is a poor buying decision.

 

[InvalidError]

Oh, certainly. But what OEM would choose this card over the much cheaper and faster option of AMD's Vega 11 IG?

Corporate clients buy PCs by the hundreds if not thousands, It is less hassle and cheaper overall to throw a $50 GPU in all machines so the baseline config can meet all typical seat requirements than have to customize things on a seat-by-seat basis.

 

[spongiemaster]

Oh, certainly. But what OEM would choose this card over the much cheaper and faster option of AMD's Vega 11 IG? Or even Intel's cheaper and nearly as fast UHD 630?

They wouldn't. These cards aren't about upgrading the stock video performance. They're feature addons, not performance addons.

 

[Endymio]

Corporate clients buy PCs by the hundreds if not thousands, It is less hassle and cheaper overall to throw a $50 GPU in all machines so the baseline config can meet all typical seat requirements than have to customize things on a seat-by-seat basis.

What corporate client today has a seat requirement of a VGA port? Any corporation buying machines in thousand-lot quantity is very unlikely to be forcing their users to use decade-old displays. Furthermore, most of the budget integrated-graphic desktops (both Intel and AMD) already offer a VGA port standard. So this card certainly isn't going to fill any great need for missing VGA ports.

If this situation was as common as you claim, you'd see OEMs offering the GT 710 as a standard display-card option today. I don't believe Lenovo, HP, or Dell do. Does anyone?

They wouldn't. These cards aren't about upgrading the stock video performance. They're feature addons, not performance addons.

Which was the point of my initial post. But the feature they're adding is not a missing VGA port, but the addition of extra ports, for multi-monitor support.

 

[Wolfshadw]

IMO, the feature that they are adding is the 2GB of memory (over on-board graphics using system memory). If you're working on a low-end system (4-8GB of RAM), then adding this card could alleviate some of the memory issues being experienced.

-Wolf sends

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

So basically we're getting a desktop version of the GeForce MX110? Super exciting! Can't wait for Intel UHD 630 levels of performance in a dedicated graphics card! /s

 

[InvalidError]

What corporate client today has a seat requirement of a VGA port?

What does VGA ports have anything to do with this? Modern GPUs don't support VGA, you need an active converter for that and since the GT1010 is a pared-down GT1030, it does not natively support VGA either. If you see any somewhat recent GPU with VGA, that's an added cost item for an on-board DAC.

As for corporations not having VGA stuff, you'd be surprised how long some companies keep stuff around and want the ability to reuse it if necessary, especially if the system is integrated into a production environment of some kind where replacing everything at once is either impractical or impossible.