Hardware & Technical Nvidia GT 1030

For a computer exclusively used for the office and web browsing (no games).

A GT 1030 compared with an IGP Intel HD 4600, will display the Web pages more quickly ?

The quality of the images, photos and videos (colors, details) will be higher ?
 
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html

The CPU and RAM will probably also factor in to the overall responsiveness of the system.

Is this a laptop you are looking to boost? Extra ram might work best depending on how much it has (and if it can be expanded)?

Excellent deduction. I did not think about this technical aspect. (I think that you're talking about the CPU and the RAM of the computer and not the GPU and the RAM of the GT 1030 ?)

No it is not a laptop but a desktop without a graphics card, only IGP and 8 GB of ram.

The screen is a 1920 * 1080p Full HD.

I wonder if with a GT 1030, the screen will express its full potential for image quality, compared with IGP.
 
Last edited:
GT1030 is a perfectly valid little graphics card. In my opinion ANY dedicated GPU will always be better than the best integrated graphics (of this day. Maybe one day we will have just one chip that can do everything, but not in this decade)
As far as non-gaming use of the computer go, I don't think you will see much difference, though maybe things like Flash will seem a bit snappier.

In any case I agree with Zak that for office applications, smooth scrolling, etc. the CPU is much more important factor, and you should have at least 8GB RAM, these days. I do have one laptop with rather old dual core i3 and 4GB RAM and it's kind of painful to use. Even freshly reinstalled it takes ages to start (when it gets into the Windows, it takes another two minutes of loading up stuff before the thing stops lagging), and it really hates having more than two or three apps in use at the same time.
 
GT1030 is a perfectly valid little graphics card. In my opinion ANY dedicated GPU will always be better than the best integrated graphics (of this day. Maybe one day we will have just one chip that can do everything, but not in this decade)
As far as non-gaming use of the computer go, I don't think you will see much difference, though maybe things like Flash will seem a bit snappier.

In any case I agree with Zak that for office applications, smooth scrolling, etc. the CPU is much more important factor, and you should have at least 8GB RAM, these days. I do have one laptop with rather old dual core i3 and 4GB RAM and it's kind of painful to use. Even freshly reinstalled it takes ages to start (when it gets into the Windows, it takes another two minutes of loading up stuff before the thing stops lagging), and it really hates having more than two or three apps in use at the same time.

Thanks for your comments. :)

Confirmation here that a dedicated card brings progress for the games mainly.

However in the advertising, they say that the display of web pages is much faster.

And the graphic quality of images, photos and videos is superior compared with an IGP.

I'm suspicious of advertisements ...

:)
 
Thanks for your comments. :)

Confirmation here that a dedicated card brings progress for the games mainly.

However in the advertising, they say that the display of web pages is much faster.

And the graphic quality of images, photos and videos is superior compared with an IGP.

I'm suspicious of advertisements ...

:)

The fact that the displaying of websites and elements is better with dedicated graphic card is probably true, but I suspect it's for a different reason than the card being more capable than integrated one.
I think the main reason why you might find browsing the internet and using programs smoother with a dedicated GC is that the integrated graphics use system memory.

That can be a big deal if your PC has, say, only 4GB of RAM and the integrated graphics "steals" a third of it, it can have a pretty noticeable impact on the overall performance of the system.
 
The fact that the displaying of websites and elements is better with dedicated graphic card is probably true, but I suspect it's for a different reason than the card being more capable than integrated one.
I think the main reason why you might find browsing the internet and using programs smoother with a dedicated GC is that the integrated graphics use system memory.

That can be a big deal if your PC has, say, only 4GB of RAM and the integrated graphics "steals" a third of it, it can have a pretty noticeable impact on the overall performance of the system.

Makes sense and is subtle.

And for the superior graphic quality of images and photos compared to an IGP, I guess that the technology of a dedicated card is more advanced and complete.

Independent RAM and more advanced rendering technology gives a big advantage to the dedicated card, even if this card is a basic model in the range. I suppose.

However, if the PC has 8 GB of RAM by example, then I wonder in this particular case if the progress obtained with the dedicated card deserve to spend money. The problem seems more complicated and more subtle.

I think that to find comments of users of this card and who do not play of the video games, would be wise.

Because your explanations show that the answer is not so simple.

:)
 
Last edited:
However in the advertising, they say that the display of web pages is much faster.

And the graphic quality of images, photos and videos is superior compared with an IGP.

I'm suspicious of advertisements ...

:)

Well the first bit is 'classic' advertisement, aimed at non technical folk that might be wary of spending more than £40 on something to add to their computer ;)

Oh the other aspect to consider for 'web page' quickness is your internet connection. So yeah there are a bunch of factors at play really. But overall other than better gaming (and not great gaming either at 1920x1080, depending on the game) i would not expect the GT 1030 to make that much difference to your online experience, but it might boost it a little?
 
Well the first bit is 'classic' advertisement, aimed at non technical folk that might be wary of spending more than £40 on something to add to their computer ;)

Oh the other aspect to consider for 'web page' quickness is your internet connection. So yeah there are a bunch of factors at play really. But overall other than better gaming (and not great gaming either at 1920x1080, depending on the game) i would not expect the GT 1030 to make that much difference to your online experience, but it might boost it a little?

I believe now after all these comments in this thread that a PC with an IGP Intel HD 4600 and 8 GB of RAM and and a very fast internet connection, not need the GT 1030 for significant and visible improvements on the speed on the web and the quality of graphics on the screen.

However I still have a doubt about the HD 4600 that was released in 2012-2013 and is not too recent. The graphic technology has certainly evolved a lot since 4-5 years (The GT 1030 released in 2017).

:)
 
Last edited:
For a computer exclusively used for the office and web browsing (no games).

A GT 1030 compared with an IGP Intel HD 4600, will display the Web pages more quickly ?

The quality of the images, photos and videos (colors, details) will be higher ?

Generally no and almost certainly not.

However in the advertising, they say that the display of web pages is much faster.

A 1030GT may well be able to draw the graphical elements of a page considerably faster, but when the actual drawing of the page is a small faction of web browsing response time, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference due to diminishing returns.

And for the superior graphic quality of images and photos compared to an IGP, I guess that the technology of a dedicated card is more advanced and complete.

There isn't going to be any difference in IQ assuming same settings and color profiles.

Back in the day, you could see a difference in image quality based on the quality of the RAMDAC used because most people were using analog displays. Twenty years ago I would have recommended Matrox, then ATI, then NVIDIA, then 3DFX, for raw output quality, analog RGB hasn't really mattered for a very long time.

Some games will still show IQ differences between major brands, due to the sort of custom optimizations Intel, AMD, an NVIDIA do to get the most performance practical without being called out on watering down graphics quality, but in general, this does not apply to 2D content.

However I still have a doubt about the HD 4600 that was released in 2012-2013 and is not too recent. The graphic technology has certainly evolved a lot since 4-5 years (The GT 1030 released in 2017).

I do about half my web browsing on a refurbished ThinkPad X230 that has a third gen i5 and HD4000 IGP.

It's not really any worse at it than my desktops that have GTX 1080 Tis.
 
Generally no and almost certainly not.



A 1030GT may well be able to draw the graphical elements of a page considerably faster, but when the actual drawing of the page is a small faction of web browsing response time, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference due to diminishing returns.



There isn't going to be any difference in IQ assuming same settings and color profiles.

Back in the day, you could see a difference in image quality based on the quality of the RAMDAC used because most people were using analog displays. Twenty years ago I would have recommended Matrox, then ATI, then NVIDIA, then 3DFX, for raw output quality, analog RGB hasn't really mattered for a very long time.

Some games will still show IQ differences between major brands, due to the sort of custom optimizations Intel, AMD, an NVIDIA do to get the most performance practical without being called out on watering down graphics quality, but in general, this does not apply to 2D content.



I do about half my web browsing on a refurbished ThinkPad X230 that has a third gen i5 and HD4000 IGP.

It's not really any worse at it than my desktops that have GTX 1080 Tis.

Well, you've convinced me that it's useless to switch to a dedicated card for a PC which is not dedicated for the games.
 
Last edited:
I do about half my web browsing on a refurbished ThinkPad X230 that has a third gen i5 and HD4000 IGP.

It's not really any worse at it than my desktops that have GTX 1080 Tis.

I would not have thought with such a gap from technology. Impressive.

But the quality of display of images, photos, and also the videos on YouTube is still superior with the 1080 TI, I think ?

If you confirm it's no, it's amazing for a 1080 TI, despite your explanations already given in your post.

:eek:
 
Last edited:
But the quality of display of images, photos, and also the videos on YouTube is still superior with the 1080 TI, I think ?

a 1080ti will just sit idle most of the time. the image quality will depend on the content itself and mostly on the monitor and configuration (resolution, color ...).

see, when looking at that sort of content there is very little processing going on. maybe on high quality video you could see a difference but i doubt it.

when it comes to slow or sluggish browsing the culprit tends to be slow network, shortage of ram, lots of disk activity due to that, a slow cpu, and the fact that nowadays web content is often overloaded, not very resource aware and often straight out reckless. as computers become more capable, web developers become more daring and lazy. this will burden all mentioned components much more than the graphics card, plus there is of course the ubiquitous spyware which is not free: e.g. each time you open any half popular web page your browser is making dozens of requests to other ad sites taking a hit on your bandwidth and response time. each of these requests also involves some code snippet that uses the browser's ram to do its thing, by which it's also making the cpu work. ideally you should install an ad blocker but bear in mind that constantly filtering out all these request is process too. since this can happen up to 50 times on each single page view, after opening several tabs some or all those components start to hit their limits, specially ram, and you start to get 'slow browsing' syndrome. it will hardly be because of the gpu not keeping up with images, any integrated gpu should be able to do that just fine, with the same quality, unless you are specifically doing image processing, even then the difference will be only speed.
 
I would not have thought with such a gap from technology. Impressive.

But the quality of display of images, photos, and also the videos on YouTube is still superior with the 1080 TI, I think ?

If you confirm it's no, it's amazing for a 1080 TI, despite your explanations already given in your post.

:eek:

If I plug them into the same display, it's really quite indistinguishable.

The laptop sees much higher CPU utilization watching the same sort of video content and can't handle 4k video very well, but for most general use stuff, there is little practical difference.
 
The AMD Raven Ridge APU's are competitive with the 1030 and when overclocked, which they do easily they can beat the 1030 hands down.

Out of the box settings they are slightly slower in most games but marginally quicker in a few titles.

[video=youtube;FntY5rYR4cE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FntY5rYR4cE[/video]

I suspect that when the 7nm AMD APUs are released in the next 12 months or so that they will be able to handle 60fps 1080p at medium and possibly even high settings on pretty much all games.
 
Last edited:
a 1080ti will just sit idle most of the time. the image quality will depend on the content itself and mostly on the monitor and configuration (resolution, color ...).

see, when looking at that sort of content there is very little processing going on. maybe on high quality video you could see a difference but i doubt it.

when it comes to slow or sluggish browsing the culprit tends to be slow network, shortage of ram, lots of disk activity due to that, a slow cpu, and the fact that nowadays web content is often overloaded, not very resource aware and often straight out reckless. as computers become more capable, web developers become more daring and lazy. this will burden all mentioned components much more than the graphics card, plus there is of course the ubiquitous spyware which is not free: e.g. each time you open any half popular web page your browser is making dozens of requests to other ad sites taking a hit on your bandwidth and response time. each of these requests also involves some code snippet that uses the browser's ram to do its thing, by which it's also making the cpu work. ideally you should install an ad blocker but bear in mind that constantly filtering out all these request is process too. since this can happen up to 50 times on each single page view, after opening several tabs some or all those components start to hit their limits, specially ram, and you start to get 'slow browsing' syndrome. it will hardly be because of the gpu not keeping up with images, any integrated gpu should be able to do that just fine, with the same quality, unless you are specifically doing image processing, even then the difference will be only speed.

Well your post confirms me once again that a dedicated graphics card is mainly useful for the games and other applications like CADD ect ...

Nvidia has not too many scruples to misleading advertising ...
 
If I plug them into the same display, it's really quite indistinguishable.

The laptop sees much higher CPU utilization watching the same sort of video content and can't handle 4k video very well, but for most general use stuff, there is little practical difference.

Well I think that I'll save 90 euros.

:p
 
Back
Top Bottom