Radeon PRO V710 vs GeForce 410M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 410M with Radeon PRO V710, including specs and performance data.
PRO V710 outperforms 410M by a whopping 4807% 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 | 1213 | 176 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.92 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | GF119 | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 3 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
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 | 48 | 3456 |
| Core clock speed | 575 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 158 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.600 | 432.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1104 TFLOPS | 27.65 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 73 | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 96 |
| TMUs | 8 | 216 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 54 |
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 | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | Up to 512 MB | 28 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 224 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 504.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | + | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| 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.
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 | 8
−4275%
| 350−400
+4275%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 3−4
−4567%
|
140−150
+4567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 3−4
−4567%
|
140−150
+4567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−4650%
|
190−200
+4650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−4728%
|
1400−1450
+4728%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 3−4
−4567%
|
140−150
+4567%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−4637%
|
900−950
+4637%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−4483%
|
550−600
+4483%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−4650%
|
190−200
+4650%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−4700%
|
240−250
+4700%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−4728%
|
1400−1450
+4728%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 3−4
−4567%
|
140−150
+4567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−4483%
|
550−600
+4483%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−4650%
|
190−200
+4650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−4700%
|
240−250
+4700%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−4728%
|
1400−1450
+4728%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−4567%
|
140−150
+4567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−4567%
|
140−150
+4567%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−4588%
|
750−800
+4588%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−4650%
|
190−200
+4650%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
This is how GeForce 410M and PRO V710 compete in popular games:
- PRO V710 is 4275% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.67 | 32.88 |
| Recency | 5 January 2011 | 3 October 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 158 Watt |
GeForce 410M has 1216.7% lower power consumption.
PRO V710, on the other hand, has a 4807.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO V710 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 410M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 410M is a notebook card while Radeon PRO V710 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
