FirePro R5000 vs GeForce GT 710
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 710 with FirePro R5000, including specs and performance data.
R5000 outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 328% 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 | 1027 | 624 |
| Place by popularity | 78 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | 0.27 |
| Power efficiency | 5.99 | 3.24 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 March 2014 (11 years ago) | 25 February 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $34.99 | $1,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
FirePro R5000 has 575% 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 | 192 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 825 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 15.26 | 39.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3663 TFLOPS | 1.267 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 512 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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 279 mm |
| Height | 2.713" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1.8 GB/s | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 102.4 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 | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA | 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 3 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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
−275%
| 30−35
+275%
|
| 1440p | 3
−300%
| 12−14
+300%
|
| 4K | 7
−286%
| 27−30
+286%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.37
+738%
| 36.63
−738%
|
| 1440p | 11.66
+685%
| 91.58
−685%
|
| 4K | 5.00
+714%
| 40.70
−714%
|
- GT 710 has 738% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GT 710 has 685% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GT 710 has 714% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−289%
|
35−40
+289%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−300%
|
140−150
+300%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−324%
|
140−150
+324%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
−325%
|
85−90
+325%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−289%
|
35−40
+289%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
−289%
|
35−40
+289%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−300%
|
140−150
+300%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
−317%
|
75−80
+317%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−289%
|
35−40
+289%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−300%
|
140−150
+300%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 7
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
This is how GT 710 and FirePro R5000 compete in popular games:
- FirePro R5000 is 275% faster in 1080p
- FirePro R5000 is 300% faster in 1440p
- FirePro R5000 is 286% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.48 | 6.33 |
| Recency | 27 March 2014 | 25 February 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 350 Watt |
GT 710 has an age advantage of 1 year, and 1742.1% lower power consumption.
FirePro R5000, on the other hand, has a 327.7% higher aggregate performance score.
The FirePro R5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 710 is a desktop graphics card while FirePro R5000 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.
