GeForce GT 1030 vs GTX 295
Aggregated performance score
GT 1030 outperforms GTX 295 by 105% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 714 | 540 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 29 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 0.16 | 2.61 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | N17P-G1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 8 January 2009 (15 years ago) | 17 May 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $500 | $79 |
| Current price | $200 (0.4x MSRP) | $137 (1.7x MSRP) |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GT 1030 has 1531% better value for money than GTX 295.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 240 | 384 |
| CUDA cores | 480 | no data |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 240 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 1228 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1670 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 289 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 92.2 billion/sec | 35.23 |
| Floating-point performance | 2x 596.2 gflops | 1,127 gflops |
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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |
| Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | 145 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 6-pin & 8-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | no data |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 4 GB |
| Standard memory config per GPU | 896 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 896 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | 6000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 223.8 GB/s | 48.06 GB/s |
| Memory interface width per GPU | 448 Bit | no data |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | Two Dual Link DVIHDMI | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | no data | + |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Supported Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | 128bit | no data |
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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 outperforms GTX 295 by 105% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GT 1030 outperforms GTX 295 by 105% in Passmark.
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 | 12−14
−108%
| 25
+108%
|
| 1440p | 10−12
−110%
| 21
+110%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−125%
| 9
+125%
|
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 3.12 | 6.39 |
| Recency | 8 January 2009 | 17 May 2017 |
| Cost | $500 | $79 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 289 Watt | 30 Watt |
The GeForce GT 1030 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 295 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
