New low end Nvidia GPU's?

I noticed today on the product / press brief for the Acer Swift 3 that they were going to be using the Nvidia Graphics on the new models, and specifically said 10 series but did not mention the card. I guess it could just be a GTX 1050 (non TI) 2GB version, but why not name the card in that case? What about a 1040, possibly a rebrand? I find it interesting they did not name the GPU in any of the articles about the new notebooks!
http://www.digit.in/laptops/acer-sw...lim-notebooks-unveiled-at-nextacer-34844.html
https://liliputing.com/2017/04/acer-swift-3-notebooks-coming-june-599.html
Any ideas?

Edit:
All hail the low end king:
MX150!
https://liliputing.com/2017/05/nvidia-launches-entry-level-geforce-mx150-graphics-for-laptops.html

 

Ive seen leaks that they are releasing the GT 1030 low end gpu.

 

I was wondering if there would even be a low end 10 series. To be honest, I'm surprised at the amount of 940m/x chips still hanging around. Even the 940 is much quicker than your average Intel Integrated, so there's a market.

 

That would be awesome. As long as it's not just a 940MX rebrand... Would love an updated ultralight with a 1030 if it's similar to a 960m.

 

TIL my GTX 860M is very, very low-end today. Ouch. And it still plays Witcher 3 at high settings at 900p at 40 FPS. Isn't that good?

 

I agree. An example of a lowend GPU is one of my GT 755m cards.

 

Not anymore. 'Mid-range' as of today would be a GTX 1050, 1050 Ti or RX 450/460. Anything below that is truly low-end, and the GM107 chip was already not particularly powerful (though very, very efficient) to begin with.

 

The 860M and 960M are just downclocked GTX 750 Ti's.

So you are technically "low-end", in the context of Nvidia's current GPU hierarchy, but that doesn't mean you are on the level of Intel's integrated graphics.

No, your GPU isn't on the chart anymore.

 

And here I am, still trying to tweaks the 840M to run dark souls 3 at a decent framerate for a action-oriented game

 

If it's too weak to be on the chart, then that's the epitome of lowend.

 

Godspeed.

<o

Los-end is on the chart, and will be the minimum system requirements for PC games.

Anything below that, like a 755M, no longer deserves a classification.

 

The low end category of this year's architecture should at least be a step beyond Maxwell levels. Say, if these exist, then:
GT 1040 = Roughly between a GTX 950M and 960M
GT 1030 = Slightly beats the 940MX
GT 1020 shouldn't even exist. It still baffles me how Ngreedia are even making a 920M and selling it in mid-expensive ultrabooks...

Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk

 

This kind of question really depends on what kind of games you play, and whether or not you're willing to drop down to 720p and/or decrease graphical settings in-game.

 

How well are you gaming at 1080p, right now? In what games are you doing well, and in which are you doing poorly?

 

The 965M is similar to this year's GTX 1050. Pretty low end, but still very good for most games in 1080p. The only downside to this card would be the low VRAM amount, as most GTX 1050 laptops come with the 4GB variant.

 

How long GPUs last depends, as everyone else has said, on what you want to compromise on. The GTX 980 lasted about a year and a half as high-end, then it got booted out by the GTX 1060, one performance tier (GM204 to GP106) down. But the 980 still is a capable GPU, and if one is willing to tone down his/her settings as time goes by, then it'll probably work well into 2018—four years, which is not too bad.

 

The GTX 1050 and 965M are both similar to the GTX 760 from many years ago. People still use the 750Ti to play demanding games (although at low details), but you see, even very old GPUs are still very capable of pushing framerates. I'll give it at least 3 or 4 years before the GTX 1050 become utterly obsolete, because by then, we'll probably see a much higher tier of graphics.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk

 

How can the 1060 "boot" the 980, when the 980 is often still the faster card?

Did you bother to look at any benchmarks, before making this statement?

 

1070 beats the 980 by a small amount, about on par with a 980 Ti. But 1060 is more like a 970 in performance.

 

No, I pulled the statement out of mid-air.

If you're talking about 'cards', then we are referring to desktop GPUs, and the GTX 1060 in nearly every benchmark and game is about 4 – 5% faster than the GTX 980. The RX 480 with the latest drivers is faster still, about 5 – 10% faster than a GTX 1060. If we are talking about desktops, then yes, the 980 has certainly been booted out by the 1060.

If we are talking about notebooks, then the GTX 1060 is about 5% slower than a GTX 980, which technically shouldn't be the case, given that the notebook and desktop chips are exactly the same. Hence, any difference in performance comes down to the manufacturer's hardware power delivery and software controls to limit performance and hence reduce temperatures in a stricter thermal environment like a notebook.

Even then, the GTX 980 consumes nearly 200 W at load, while the GTX 1060 uses slightly more than half that, and the latter still is 90 – 95% as powerful as the former (using the notebook performance metrics). If not by performance, then the 980 has definitely been booted out of its performance bracket by the sheer efficiency of Pascal, which is what matters in notebooks. And I hardly need mention that a new 980 is still more expensive than a 1060. Who in their right mind would buy a 2-year-old GPU today?

There's no true equivalent to a GTX 970 today from nVidia, but perhaps an RX 470 from AMD.

The 980, 1060, 970 etc. all have very clear-cut Fire Strike average scores; one can generate three distributions of those scores. The 980 centres around 12000, as does the 1060. The 970 centres around 9500, whereas the RX 470 hits roughly 10000. The 1070 jumps to 15000, and the 1080 goes to 18-19000.

 

FTFY

 

haha, you're right. oops.

 

Perhaps but that's only if the card in question happens to be weaker than the cards on the low end of the chart. If this chart still includes the 940MX for instance, then the 755m is still safely lowend.

 

I still just want more info on a GT 1040 / GT 1030.
I'd hope they'd pack around GTX 950m power in a GT 940m/x price point. That'd be amazing.

 

Announced!

https://liliputing.com/2017/05/nvidia-launches-entry-level-geforce-mx150-graphics-for-laptops.html