GeForce GT 710 vs FirePro W600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W600 with GeForce GT 710, including specs and performance data.
W600 outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 172% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 715 | 1000 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 83 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.20 | 0.04 |
Power efficiency | 4.09 | 5.94 |
Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
GPU code name | Cape Verde | GK208 |
Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
Release date | 13 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 27 March 2014 (11 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | $34.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
FirePro W600 has 400% better value for money than GT 710.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 192 |
Core clock speed | 750 MHz | 954 MHz |
Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 915 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
Texture fill rate | 24.00 | 15.26 |
Floating-point processing power | 0.768 TFLOPS | 0.3663 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 16 | 8 |
TMUs | 32 | 16 |
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).
Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
Length | 163 mm | 145 mm |
Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
Width | 1-slot | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
Memory bandwidth | 64 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 | 6x mini-DisplayPort | 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
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.
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 | 21−24
+163%
| 8
−163%
|
1440p | 8−9
+167%
| 3
−167%
|
4K | 18−20
+157%
| 7
−157%
|
Cost per frame, $
1080p | 28.52
−552%
| 4.37
+552%
|
1440p | 74.88
−542%
| 11.66
+542%
|
4K | 33.28
−566%
| 5.00
+566%
|
- GT 710 has 552% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GT 710 has 542% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GT 710 has 566% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 3
+0%
|
3
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
+0%
|
3
+0%
|
Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
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 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Valorant | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Dota 2 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how FirePro W600 and GT 710 compete in popular games:
- FirePro W600 is 163% faster in 1080p
- FirePro W600 is 167% faster in 1440p
- FirePro W600 is 157% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 44 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 4.02 | 1.48 |
Recency | 13 June 2012 | 27 March 2014 |
Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
FirePro W600 has a 171.6% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 710, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 294.7% lower power consumption.
The FirePro W600 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W600 is a workstation 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.