NVIDIA GeForce GT 730 GPU (2GB DDR3)

[Media Editor]

I am purchasing a new computer.  Are there any known problems with this card?

[Moderator note: moved to best forum.]

[R Neil Haugen]

If that's in a "new" computer, well ... it's an older card with a small amount of older (slower) vRAM ... and only 384 CUDA cores, well under what most folks want now for GPUs. Cheap, yea ... but pretty minimalist.

Neil

[Media Editor]

Thank you for the information.  What card would you recommend?

[R Neil Haugen]

The newest series is the "thousand" group, 1080, 1070, 1060, 1050 I think. Higher numbers are a bit spendier but tend to have more good bits to them. I'm running an EVGA 1060/6GB that was a bit under $300USD a couple months back, and has been performing very well. For what the GPU does in this program, which isn't a lot of things. Mainly color, major re-scaling (resizing), Warp stabilizer, that sort of effect.

To really get the most bang for the buck, it's the balance of parts for the rig that matters. So ... give a list of the total parts for the machine, and folks here will advise.

Neil

[RjL190365]

There have been two different versions of that GT 730 DDR3 GPU, both of which are actually slower and weaker than even the integrated inside-the-CPU Intel HD Graphics in newer mainstream Intel CPUs. One is a GPU that dates way back to the low-end Fermi-based GT 430 of 2010, a lousy GPU even in its day, with only 96 CUDA cores; the other is a newer Kepler implementation with 384 CUDA cores but is hamstrung by its 64-bit memory bus. You don't want either one of those two in any newer Intel or AMD CPU-based PC. The only version of any of the GT 730 variants that are as powerful as or more powerful than today's integrated graphics is/was the version with 384 CUDA cores and 64-bit GDDR5 (not DDR3) memory, but it is not sufficiently more powerful than integrated to justify its current street price.