GeForce GT 710 vs Radeon 860M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 860M with GeForce GT 710, including specs and performance data.
860M outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 690% 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 | 460 | 1037 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 83 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 60.29 | 6.03 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (2025−2026) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | Krackan Point | GK208 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | March 2025 (1 year 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 | 512 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 34,000 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 96.00 | 15.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.3663 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 16 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 128 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | 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 |
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 | System Shared | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | Portable Device Dependent | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 3 displays |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 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 | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.1.126 |
| 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.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 27
+238%
| 8
−238%
|
| 1440p | 18
+500%
| 3
−500%
|
| 4K | 55−60
+686%
| 7
−686%
|
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 | 65−70
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Palworld | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 24−27 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50
+900%
|
5
−900%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+1280%
|
5−6
−1280%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+525%
|
8−9
−525%
|
| Palworld | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+200%
|
35−40
−200%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+412%
|
30−35
−412%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+1025%
|
4
−1025%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+1280%
|
5−6
−1280%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+525%
|
8−9
−525%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 43
+378%
|
9
−378%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+700%
|
3
−700%
|
| Palworld | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+820%
|
5
−820%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+200%
|
35−40
−200%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+950%
|
4
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+525%
|
8−9
−525%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
+833%
|
3
−833%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+1280%
|
5−6
−1280%
|
| Palworld | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+790%
|
10−11
−790%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1350%
|
8−9
−1350%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| Palworld | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+511%
|
9−10
−511%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
Full HD
High
| Dota 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
High
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
This is how Radeon 860M and GT 710 compete in popular games:
- Radeon 860M is 238% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 860M is 500% faster in 1440p
- Radeon 860M is 686% 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 Radeon 860M is 6400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 860M performs better in 45 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.69 | 1.48 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 19 Watt |
Radeon 860M has a 690% higher aggregate performance score, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 27% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 860M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 860M 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.
