Active or better passive cooling? The GeForce GT 1030 in a practical comparison!

Gigabyte GT 1030 Low Profile and Low Profile Silent We have deliberately opted for the low-profile form factor, as this type of card is likely to be used mainly in the area of small and very small PCs. And this is exactly where we will be... The Gigabyte GT 1030 Low Profile The active card is a whole 15.0 cm long (from the outside of the slot panel to the end of the cooler) and 6.5 cm high (from top board slot to top edge cooler). The depth is 1.7 cm and is... Battlefield 1 (DX12) In our launch review of the AMD Radeon RX 550 2 GB we had already tested Battlefield 1 with the lowest quality settings - always hoping to play it in a resolution with 1920 x 1080 pixels. Dota 2 (volcano) The results from our launch article for the Radeon 550X had already given us an approximate presentation of what with such small cards at a resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels and medium quality settings... Voltages and temperatures Let's first look at the voltage curve in the gaming loop. both cards act almost identically and the voltage levels under load after heating to values between 0.96 and 0.98 volts. However, if you... Temperature curve and clock rates The warm-up phase of both cards could not be more different, but the final result of both cards is very similar. In no case will the temperature rise above 65 or 66 °C. The passive card reaches in the Gam... Summary Given the resource disadvantages of the GeForce GT 1030 compared to the Radeon RX 550, the smallest current Nvidia card with the GP108 actually compensates for these deficits quite well. In older, DirectX9 and DirectX11 based...

Voltages and temperatures

Let's first look at the voltage curve in the gaming loop. both cards act almost identically and the voltage levels under load after heating to values between 0.96 and 0.98 volts. However, if you take a closer look, the regulation of the passively cooled card is a little finer and faster. However, the averages (and also the beat, as well as the gaming performance) are practically identical.

The power consumption of both cards is also basically the same. The fact that the small fan absorbs less than one watt of electrical power in normal operation, the differences due to the possible, different GPU quality are already in the same frame or even greater. The measured 32 watts when gaming or gaming 34 watts in the Torture test are a little above Nvidia's TDP data, but this refers to the GPU alone. This makes the story look good again and you're just below the 30-watt mark.

Power consumption and currents at a glance

Now let's look at the exact curve in the gaming loop. Short-term peaks up to almost 40 watts (in higher resolution and very short intervals also occasionally up to approx. 48 watts) can be neglected, because after every outcry there is compensating silence. In any case, the average value meets the manufacturer's specifications quite accurately.

Short-term current peaks up to approx. 3.3 Amperes are also not something that could grill the technique in any form.

In the Torture-Loop, the deflections of the curves are somewhat more moderate, but here too there were peaks up to approx. 39 watts. However, the course is somewhat more balanced, because the load is also more constant.

The curve for the current flow then also looks adequate:

Compliance with the standard on the motherboard slot

Finally, we test compliance with the 5.5 ampere set by the PCI SIG as the upper limit for the allowed currents on the motherboard slot. With an average value of 2.7 amps, the card does not even load up to half the maximum allowed. You really don't have to worry about that!