GeForce GTS 250 vs GT 1030

Place in the ranking	576	972
Place by popularity	36	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.31	0.09
Power efficiency	14.56	0.70
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GP108	G92B
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	17 May 2017 (7 years ago)	4 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$79	$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 1030 has 2467% better value for money than GTS 250.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	384	128
Core clock speed	1228 MHz	738 MHz
Boost clock speed	1468 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,800 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	150 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	35.23	44.93
Floating-point processing power	1.127 TFLOPS	0.3871 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	24	64

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x4	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	145 mm	229 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin
SLI options	-	+

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	1100 MHz
Memory bandwidth	48.06 GB/s	70.4 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI	Two Dual Link DVI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
G-SYNC support	+	-
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Ready

no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.0
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	6.1	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 1030 6.37
+314%

GTS 250 1.54

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GT 1030 2454
+313%

GTS 250 594

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD	24 +380%	5−6 −380%
1440p	23 +360%	5−6 −360%
4K	8 +700%	1−2 −700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.29	39.80
1440p	3.43	39.80
4K	9.88	199.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+400%

3−4
−400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18 +350%	4−5 −350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Battlefield 5	22 +340%	5−6 −340%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18 +350%	4−5 −350%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +450%	2−3 −450%
Far Cry 5	21 +320%	5−6 −320%
Far Cry New Dawn	27 +350%	6−7 −350%
Forza Horizon 4	93 +343%	21−24 −343%
Hitman 3	16 +433%	3−4 −433%
Horizon Zero Dawn	152 +334%	35−40 −334%
Metro Exodus	26 +333%	6−7 −333%
Red Dead Redemption 2	31 +343%	7−8 −343%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	37 +363%	8−9 −363%
Watch Dogs: Legion	93 +343%	21−24 −343%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24 +380%	5−6 −380%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Battlefield 5	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16 +433%	3−4 −433%
Cyberpunk 2077	7 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Far Cry New Dawn	20 +400%	4−5 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	84 +367%	18−20 −367%
Hitman 3	15 +400%	3−4 −400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	123 +356%	27−30 −356%
Metro Exodus	20 +400%	4−5 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	15 +400%	3−4 −400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	19 +375%	4−5 −375%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +400%	4−5 −400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	84 +367%	18−20 −367%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7 +600%	1−2 −600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5 +400%	1−2 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Forza Horizon 4	16 +433%	3−4 −433%
Hitman 3	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Horizon Zero Dawn	19 +375%	4−5 −375%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +433%	3−4 −433%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12 +500%	2−3 −500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6 +500%	1−2 −500%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+375%

4−5
−375%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Far Cry 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +400%	4−5 −400%
Hitman 3	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14 +367%	3−4 −367%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	11 +450%	2−3 −450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	48 +380%	10−11 −380%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

+450%

2−3
−450%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	4	0−1
Hitman 3	3−4	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	7 +600%	1−2 −600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6 +500%	1−2 −500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+600%

1−2

−600%

This is how GT 1030 and GTS 250 compete in popular games:

GT 1030 is 380% faster in 1080p
GT 1030 is 360% faster in 1440p
GT 1030 is 700% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.37	1.54
Recency	17 May 2017	4 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	150 Watt

GT 1030 has a 313.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 1030 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.