News We Finally Have Our First GeForce GT 1010 GPU Benchmark

drtweak

Illustrious
Ummm is it even worth it? I feel like most intergraded graphics in the past 5 years can do just as good of a job XD

Since there is nothing on Passmark, and going by the 95% slower, 3070 scores 21934. 5% of that is 1096. The HD 630, which came with the 7th Gen 5 years go, scores 1140 in passmark. If it is simply for things like 4th Gen intel and older i can see, but still. Why? lol
 

spongiemaster

Estimable
Dec 12, 2019
1,860
931
3,560
0
I figure just a replacement for the old GT710 and 730 cards, maybe. Anything that needs the extra outputs.
Exactly. When we buy Dell's for our office, if we need a VGA port, the desktop comes with some fanless AMD graphics card. Not sure of the exact model, but you certainly wouldn't attempt to game on it. This card is for OEM's that want to add ports to their office desktops.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Ummm is it even worth it? I feel like most intergraded graphics in the past 5 years can do just as good of a job XD
If you need extra video outputs or just need something to stuff in an IGP-less system as a placeholder or otherwise head-less system, the cheapest GPU possible that is still in-production and actively supported makes sense.
 

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
758
140
19,170
4
95% slower than an RTX 3070 means absolutely nothing. A few clicks into the benchmark and I could get a score for the GT 1030: around 10300 points on CUDA benchmark. So, the card is around 75% of a GT 1030. Not quite that bad, probably is slightly worse than the Ryzen 2200G GPU. Maybe it can do some light gaming at 720p.
 
So... It's slower than a RadeonHD 7770 (itself a bit slower than a GT 1030). And since pretty much all GT 730 variants have gone out of support, I guess Nvidia needed something even cheaper than the GT 1030 DDR that still had official support for OEMs that needed more than the 2 or 3 outputs you can find on most embedded graphics - or who have a surplus of either non-F Intel or -X Ryzen processors.
 

King_V

Illustrious
Ambassador
95% slower than an RTX 3070 means absolutely nothing. A few clicks into the benchmark and I could get a score for the GT 1030: around 10300 points on CUDA benchmark. So, the card is around 75% of a GT 1030. Not quite that bad, probably is slightly worse than the Ryzen 2200G GPU. Maybe it can do some light gaming at 720p.
What I did to guesstimate that is go to the GPU hierarchy chart.

The RTX 3070 is 76.3% on that chart. So, 5% of that is 3.815%. If that estimate is correct, that puts it above the Intel Iris Plus on the i7-1065G7, and below Intel Iris Xe DG1.

Vega 8 in on the R3 3200G does better.

Again, that's if we can use that 5% of the GTX 3070 as an exact measure. Obviously actual testing would be required. Though, I imagine that would hardly be a priority. Am I curious? Yes. But I also suggested testing the Vega 3 on the Athlon 2x0 APUs, so I'm hardly on the level of "sane" here. :LOL:
 

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
758
140
19,170
4
What I did to guesstimate that is go to the GPU hierarchy chart.

The RTX 3070 is 76.3% on that chart. So, 5% of that is 3.815%. If that estimate is correct, that puts it above the Intel Iris Plus on the i7-1065G7, and below Intel Iris Xe DG1.

Vega 8 in on the R3 3200G does better.

Again, that's if we can use that 5% of the GTX 3070 as an exact measure. Obviously actual testing would be required. Though, I imagine that would hardly be a priority. Am I curious? Yes. But I also suggested testing the Vega 3 on the Athlon 2x0 APUs, so I'm hardly on the level of "sane" here. :LOL:
I just went to the source benchmark (Geekbench) and searched, on the CUDA tests, for the GT 1030. I think that 95% is too prone to error, because of the huge difference. But I agree, only some testing can give us correct results.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY