Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Nvidia Announces Three Versions of GeForce GT 730

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Components
  • Nvidia
Last response: in News comments
Share
a c 84 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 24, 2014 8:22:18 AM

how strange, I would get a r7 240 in a heart beat over that card since it only has a 64 bit bus.

96 cuda cores! That is as many cores as in my old gt540M that I still use.
Score
9
June 24, 2014 8:37:14 AM

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.
Score
9
Related resources
June 24, 2014 9:01:39 AM

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.
Score
3
June 24, 2014 9:52:32 AM

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.
Score
12
June 24, 2014 10:33:20 AM

Quote:
It sounds like the 96 core version is still the old Fermi (GT630 D5 and G5)



It looks exactly like a GeForce GT 620. According to Wikipedia the clocks and the cores are the same.
Score
10
June 24, 2014 12:02:08 PM

As a tech website we don't expect this kind of error from Tom's Hardware.It is GDDR5 not DDR5.
Score
4
June 24, 2014 2:21:24 PM

wth 3 different graphic cards under one name !!!
and please fix the ddr5 error
Score
0
June 24, 2014 2:51:25 PM

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.
Score
-2
June 24, 2014 2:54:10 PM

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.
Score
2
June 24, 2014 3:13:48 PM

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?
Score
2
June 24, 2014 4:42:28 PM

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.
Score
6
June 24, 2014 5:18:19 PM

It takes a lot less energy than a 260GTX
Score
4
June 24, 2014 6:11:29 PM

Announces new GT 730... No One... Anywhere... Cared... Ever...
Score
1
June 25, 2014 12:23:52 AM

Quote:
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.
Score
2
June 25, 2014 1:32:31 AM

Back in 2006, this would have been cutting edge.
Score
4
June 25, 2014 2:53:17 AM

why they cant use other names? 710/720? 735? 725?
Score
1
June 25, 2014 3:06:32 AM

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.
Score
1
a b U Graphics card
June 25, 2014 3:11:22 AM

The people who will be buying these cards will be the ones who know nothing about GPUs in the first place. This 3 version confusion is basically a cash grab from these kind of people
Score
2
June 25, 2014 8:02:22 AM

3 versions of a rebadged video card that nobody really should want or have to use. Commerce needs to die.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
June 25, 2014 10:48:41 AM

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).
Score
0
June 25, 2014 12:09:11 PM

NVIDIA, please quit playing around with us and release something we can really get EXCITED about! Purty please! With my money on top! :) 
Score
1
June 26, 2014 2:09:04 AM

It looks like a 8400gs to me Lol ...
Score
0
July 1, 2014 8:42:36 PM

coffeecoffee said:
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).


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.
Score
0
!