GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition vs GT 710
Aggregated performance score
GT 710 outperforms GT 650M Mac Edition by 3% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 905 | 915 |
| Place by popularity | 48 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | no data |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GK208B | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 27 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 12 July 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $34.99 | no data |
| Current price | $81 (2.3x MSRP) | $50 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 192 | 384 |
| CUDA cores | 192 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 15.26 | 28.80 |
| Floating-point performance | 366.3 gflops | 691.2 gflops |
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 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 5.7" (14.5 cm) | no data |
| Height | 2.713" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1.8 GB/s | 5016 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 80.26 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 3 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| 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 | + | no data |
| PureVideo | + | no data |
| PhysX | + | 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 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 3.0 |
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
+14.3%
| 7−8
−14.3%
|
| 1440p | 3
+50%
| 2−3
−50%
|
| 4K | 7
+16.7%
| 6−7
−16.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
This is how GT 710 and GT 650M Mac Edition compete in popular games:
- GT 710 is 14.3% faster than GT 650M Mac Edition in 1080p
- GT 710 is 50% faster than GT 650M Mac Edition in 1440p
- GT 710 is 16.7% faster than GT 650M Mac Edition in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.63 | 1.58 |
| Recency | 27 March 2014 | 12 July 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 45 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 710 and GeForce GT 650M Mac Edition.
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.
