NVS 510 vs GeForce GT 710
Aggregated performance score
NVS 510 outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 11% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 904 | 877 |
| Place by popularity | 48 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | 0.14 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GK208B | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 23 October 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $34.99 | $449 |
| Current price | $81 (2.3x MSRP) | $61 (0.1x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
NVS 510 has 250% 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 | 192 | 192 |
| CUDA cores | 192 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 797 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 15.26 | 12.75 |
| Floating-point performance | 366.3 gflops | 306.0 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 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 5.7" (14.5 cm) | 160 mm |
| Height | 2.713" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1.8 GB/s | 1782 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 28.51 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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
| 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 |
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.
NVS 510 outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 11% 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%
NVS 510 outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 11% in Passmark.
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%
GeForce GT 710 outperforms NVS 510 by 15% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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%
GeForce GT 710 outperforms NVS 510 by 7% 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%
GeForce GT 710 outperforms NVS 510 by 18% 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 | 8
+0%
| 8−9
+0%
|
| 1440p | 3
+0%
| 3−4
+0%
|
| 4K | 7
+0%
| 7−8
+0%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| 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
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how GT 710 and NVS 510 compete in popular games:
- NVS 510 is 0% faster than GT 710 in 1080p
- NVS 510 is 0% faster than GT 710 in 1440p
- NVS 510 is 0% faster than GT 710 in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.63 | 1.81 |
| Recency | 27 March 2014 | 23 October 2012 |
| Cost | $34.99 | $449 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 35 Watt |
The NVS 510 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 710 is a desktop card while NVS 510 is a workstation 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.
