GeForce GT 710 vs 930MX
Aggregate performance score
930MX outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 105% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 702 | 908 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 48 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.08 | 0.04 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | N16S-GMR | GK208B |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 March 2016 (8 years ago) | 27 March 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $34.99 |
| Current price | $1808 | $81 (2.3x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce 930MX has 100% better value for money than GT 710.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 192 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 952 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1020 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 24.48 | 15.26 |
| Floating-point performance | 783.4 gflops | 366.3 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce 930MX and GeForce GT 710 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 5.7" (14.5 cm) |
| Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-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 | DDR3, GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 3 displays |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| 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 | no data | + |
| PureVideo | no data | + |
| PhysX | no data | + |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
| GameWorks | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
930MX outperforms GT 710 by 105% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
930MX outperforms GT 710 by 105% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
930MX outperforms GT 710 by 69% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
930MX outperforms GT 710 by 25% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
930MX outperforms GT 710 by 186% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
930MX outperforms GT 710 by 92% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
930MX outperforms GT 710 by 146% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
930MX outperforms GT 710 by 266% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
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 | 17
+143%
| 7
−143%
|
| 1440p | 10−12
+100%
| 5
−100%
|
| 4K | 14−16
+100%
| 7
−100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12
+140%
|
5
−140%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20
+53.8%
|
12−14
−53.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 15
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 13
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 13
+62.5%
|
8
−62.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+100%
|
15
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+133%
|
3
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−25%
|
5
+25%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 11
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5
+66.7%
|
3
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+100%
|
5
−100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+100%
|
3
−100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−50%
|
15
+50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how GeForce 930MX and GT 710 compete in popular games:
- GeForce 930MX is 143% faster in 1080p
- GeForce 930MX is 100% faster in 1440p
- GeForce 930MX is 100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce 930MX is 1400% faster than the GT 710.
- in Far Cry 5, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GT 710 is 50% faster than the GeForce 930MX.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce 930MX is ahead in 41 test (93%)
- GT 710 is ahead in 3 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.34 | 1.63 |
| Recency | 10 March 2016 | 27 March 2014 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 19 Watt |
The GeForce 930MX is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 930MX is a notebook card while GeForce GT 710 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
