deruberhanyok - Firstly, I have to thank you for consistently keeping this thread updated with recommendations. I was one of the first beneficiaries of this thread within a week or so of you having created it, and a week ago I used it again, because I replaced my R7 250E with a GT 1030. Here's results of the one benchmark that I ran.
Settings used for the Unigine Valley 1.0 benchmark are:
- Render: Direct 3D 11
- Mode: 1920x1200 2xAA fullscreen
- Quality: Ultra
Running in a:
Nvidia GeForce GT 1030 MSI's GeForce GT 1030 2G LP OC
- 2014 Dell OptiPlex 9020 SFF
- Intel Core i5 4570 at stock 3.2 GHz
- 16 GB DDR3 at 1600 MHz
- SanDisk Extreme II SSD
, which is mildly overclocked from the factory.
AMD Radeon R7 250E
- FPS: 23.7
- Score: 990
- Min FPS: 13.7
- Max FPS: 41.9
(a.k.a. a rebranded Cape Verde 7750)
Intel HD Graphics 4600
- FPS: 13.2
- Score: 552
- Min FPS: 8.1
- Max FPS: 22.1
- FPS: 3.6
- Score: 149
- Min FPS: 2.1
- Max FPS: 5.9
The reason for the replacement was because the AMD card seemed to be acting up - it caused occasional crashes of the PC, despite cleaning it of dust, cleaning its contacts, reseating it, etc. Once again, this thread came to the rescue as on page 1 there was a recommended single-slot low-profile card, namely the GT 1030. What further convinced me was the fact that this was finally a card with current generation technology, as this lower-end of the market has been languishing with rebranded parts for quite some time.
Objectively, the card idles and runs much cooler (which is expected, given the process changes), and with a lower power draw.
Subjectively, it also means that the card is quieter, and is effectively inaudible under load given the other ambient noise in my room. Moving from the R7 250 to the GT 1030 has made no difference to the gaming demands I place on it, since they're all lightweight games (Banished, Rise of Nations, Age of Mythology).
The one gripe I have is that in terms of specifications, the card reads like it has been gimped slightly, with 64-bit memory bandwidth, and with the card running on an x4 PCI-E configuration (it is plugged in to the x16 slot which is electrically an x16 slot, just that the card is internally capped at x4). In the real world, I don't think these matter, but when comparing specs to the previous card, it does seem an odd decision. I'm not sure why Nvidia felt the need to do this, as the GT 1050 is way ahead, so there's no risk of the 1030 undercutting it.