GeForce GT 710 vs GTX 280M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 280M with GeForce GT 710, including specs and performance data.
GT 710 outperforms 280M by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1051 | 1039 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 98 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 1.47 | 6.03 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | G92B | GK208 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 March 2009 (17 years ago) | 27 March 2014 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $34.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 128 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 585 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 1,020 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 37.44 | 15.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3745 TFLOPS | no data |
| Gigaflops | 562 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 512 KB |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-HE | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | no data |
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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 950 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 61 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIDisplayPortLVDSVGA | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 3 displays |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision | - | + |
| PureVideo | - | + |
| PhysX | - | + |
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.175 |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 7−8
−14.3%
| 8
+14.3%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−50%
| 3
+50%
|
| 4K | 6−7
−16.7%
| 7
+16.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.37 |
| 1440p | no data | 11.66 |
| 4K | no data | 5.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5
+66.7%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−3.1%
|
30−35
+3.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4
+33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−800%
|
9
+800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−50%
|
3
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+40%
|
5
−40%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+133%
|
3
−133%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−250%
|
7
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how GTX 280M and GT 710 compete in popular games:
- GT 710 is 14% faster in 1080p
- GT 710 is 50% faster in 1440p
- GT 710 is 17% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 280M is 133% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 710 is 800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 280M performs better in 2 tests (4%)
- GT 710 performs better in 10 tests (21%)
- there's a draw in 35 tests (74%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.43 | 1.48 |
| Recency | 3 March 2009 | 27 March 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
GT 710 has a 3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96% more advanced lithography process, and 295% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 280M and GeForce GT 710.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 280M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GT 710 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
