GeForce GT 710 vs GTX 670M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 670M with GeForce GT 710, including specs and performance data.
670M outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 178% 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 | 744 | 1038 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 83 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 4.24 | 6.03 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | GK208 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (14 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 | 336 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 598 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 1,020 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 33.49 | 15.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8037 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 24 | 8 |
| TMUs | 56 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 384 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 Express 2.0 | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | 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 | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 72.0 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 | No outputs | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 3 displays |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision | - | + |
| PureVideo | - | + |
| PhysX | - | + |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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:
| 900p | 39
+179%
| 14−16
−179%
|
| Full HD | 41
+413%
| 8
−413%
|
| 1440p | 8−9
+167%
| 3
−167%
|
| 4K | 18−20
+157%
| 7
−157%
|
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
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 6−7 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+140%
|
5
−140%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+52.8%
|
35−40
−52.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 91
+176%
|
30−35
−176%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+85%
|
20
−85%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+200%
|
4
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9
−44.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+133%
|
3
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+140%
|
5
−140%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+52.8%
|
35−40
−52.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+106%
|
18
−106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+200%
|
4
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+300%
|
3
−300%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+52.8%
|
35−40
−52.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+120%
|
14−16
−120%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+273%
|
10−12
−273%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+100%
|
7
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how GTX 670M and GT 710 compete in popular games:
- GTX 670M is 179% faster in 900p
- GTX 670M is 413% faster in 1080p
- GTX 670M is 167% faster in 1440p
- GTX 670M is 157% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTX 670M is 1600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 670M surpassed GT 710 in all 47 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.11 | 1.48 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 27 March 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
GTX 670M has a 178% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 710, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 33% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 295% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 670M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 670M 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.
