GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB vs GT 710
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 710 with GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 670% 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 | 1004 | 442 |
| Place by popularity | 83 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.94 | 11.59 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | GP107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 March 2014 (11 years ago) | 1 February 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $34.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1366 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1442 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 15.26 | 69.22 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3663 TFLOPS | 2.215 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 24 |
| TMUs | 16 | 48 |
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 | 145 mm | no data |
| Height | 2.713" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-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 | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1.8 GB/s | 1752 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 84.1 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 | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 3 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| 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 | + | - |
| PureVideo | + | - |
| PhysX | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
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
−650%
| 60−65
+650%
|
| 1440p | 3
−600%
| 21−24
+600%
|
| 4K | 7
−614%
| 50−55
+614%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.37 | no data |
| 1440p | 11.66 | no data |
| 4K | 5.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−650%
|
45−50
+650%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−650%
|
45−50
+650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−643%
|
260−270
+643%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−658%
|
250−260
+658%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
−650%
|
150−160
+650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−650%
|
45−50
+650%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−643%
|
260−270
+643%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
−622%
|
130−140
+622%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−650%
|
45−50
+650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−643%
|
260−270
+643%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−633%
|
110−120
+633%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−650%
|
60−65
+650%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| God of War | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−633%
|
110−120
+633%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−650%
|
60−65
+650%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 7
−614%
|
50−55
+614%
|
| God of War | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
This is how GT 710 and GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB is 650% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB is 600% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB is 614% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.48 | 11.40 |
| Recency | 27 March 2014 | 1 February 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 75 Watt |
GT 710 has 294.7% lower power consumption.
GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB, on the other hand, has a 670.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB 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 GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
