Radeon PRO V710 vs GeForce GT 555M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 555M with Radeon PRO V710, including specs and performance data.
PRO V710 outperforms GT 555M by a whopping 1905% 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 | 967 | 176 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.31 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 October 2011 (13 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 | Up to 144 | 3456 |
| Core clock speed | Up to 753 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 753 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 158 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.60 | 432.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3024 TFLOPS | 27.65 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 96 |
| TMUs | 24 | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 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 |
| SLI options | + | - |
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\DDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 28 GB |
| Memory bus width | Up to 192 bit/128 Bit | 224 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 1569 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 50.2 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 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:
| 900p | 19
−1742%
| 350−400
+1742%
|
| Full HD | 25
−1900%
| 500−550
+1900%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−1900%
|
120−130
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−1900%
|
160−170
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1900%
|
200−210
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1844%
|
700−750
+1844%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−1812%
|
650−700
+1812%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−1742%
|
350−400
+1742%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−1900%
|
120−130
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−1900%
|
160−170
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1900%
|
200−210
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1900%
|
140−150
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1844%
|
700−750
+1844%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−1742%
|
350−400
+1742%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−1900%
|
160−170
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1900%
|
200−210
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1900%
|
140−150
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1844%
|
700−750
+1844%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
−1900%
|
120−130
+1900%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
−1900%
|
220−230
+1900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1900%
|
200−210
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−1900%
|
200−210
+1900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1900%
|
80−85
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−1775%
|
300−310
+1775%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−1900%
|
160−170
+1900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
This is how GT 555M and PRO V710 compete in popular games:
- PRO V710 is 1742% faster in 900p
- PRO V710 is 1900% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.64 | 32.88 |
| Recency | 27 October 2011 | 3 October 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 28 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 158 Watt |
GT 555M has 351.4% lower power consumption.
PRO V710, on the other hand, has a 1904.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 833.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO V710 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 555M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 555M 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.
