GeForce 710M vs Radeon R9 270X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 270X with GeForce 710M, including specs and performance data.
R9 270X outperforms 710M by a whopping 1016% 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 | 1154 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.19 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.02 | 5.40 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | Curacao | GK208 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (12 years ago) | 24 July 2013 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
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 | 1280 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 719 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 84.00 | 11.50 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.688 TFLOPS | 0.2761 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 80 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | no data | DDR3 |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | no data | Up to 2560x1600 |
| LVDS signal support | no data | Up to 1920x1200 |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | Up to 2560x1600 |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP content protection | - | + |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | - | + |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | - | + |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | - | + |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+1200%
|
5−6
−1200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Palworld | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+1200%
|
4−5
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+1200%
|
5−6
−1200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+3350%
|
2−3
−3350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
| Palworld | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+378%
|
9−10
−378%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+239%
|
30−35
−239%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+1200%
|
4−5
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+1200%
|
5−6
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+550%
|
24−27
−550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+433%
|
14−16
−433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+3350%
|
2−3
−3350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Palworld | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+378%
|
9−10
−378%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+239%
|
30−35
−239%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+1200%
|
4−5
−1200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+433%
|
14−16
−433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+378%
|
9−10
−378%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+239%
|
30−35
−239%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+3350%
|
2−3
−3350%
|
| Palworld | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+1383%
|
6−7
−1383%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+509%
|
10−12
−509%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+5700%
|
2−3
−5700%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Palworld | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
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 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+686%
|
7−8
−686%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+1333%
|
3−4
−1333%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Palworld | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 270X is 5700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 270X surpassed GeForce 710M in all 41 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.72 | 1.05 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 24 July 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 15 Watt |
R9 270X has a 1016% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 months, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GeForce 710M, on the other hand, has 1100% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 270X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 710M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 270X is a desktop graphics card while GeForce 710M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
