GeForce GT 710 vs GTX 1080 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile with GeForce GT 710, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1080 Mobile outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 2085% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 126 | 908 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 49 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 91.79 | 0.04 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | N17E-G3 | GK208B |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 16 August 2016 (7 years ago) | 27 March 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499.99 | $34.99 |
| Current price | $230 (0.5x MSRP) | $81 (2.3x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1080 Mobile has 229375% 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 | 2560 | 192 |
| CUDA cores | 2560 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | 95 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 283.4 | 15.26 |
| Floating-point performance | 9,068 gflops | 366.3 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile and GeForce GT 710 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 5.7" (14.5 cm) |
| Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 10 GB/s | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | DP 1.42, HDMI 2.0b, DL-DVI | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | + | 3 displays |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
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 | + |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | + |
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.
GTX 1080 Mobile outperforms GT 710 by 2085% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GTX 1080 Mobile outperforms GT 710 by 2159% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GTX 1080 Mobile outperforms GT 710 by 1643% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
GTX 1080 Mobile outperforms GT 710 by 481% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
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 | 116
+1350%
| 8
−1350%
|
| 1440p | 69
+2200%
| 3
−2200%
|
| 4K | 54
+800%
| 6
−800%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1425%
|
4−5
−1425%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 59
+1867%
|
3−4
−1867%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 78
+2500%
|
3−4
−2500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 115
+2200%
|
5−6
−2200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 93
+1760%
|
5−6
−1760%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1425%
|
4−5
−1425%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 97
+4750%
|
2−3
−4750%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 129
+3125%
|
4−5
−3125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 108
+2060%
|
5−6
−2060%
|
| Hitman 3 | 91
+2175%
|
4−5
−2175%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 194
+1193%
|
14−16
−1193%
|
| Metro Exodus | 140
+2233%
|
6−7
−2233%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 92
+2967%
|
3−4
−2967%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 130−140
+1588%
|
8
−1588%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 77
+542%
|
12−14
−542%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 52
+1633%
|
3−4
−1633%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 68
+2167%
|
3−4
−2167%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 107
+2575%
|
4−5
−2575%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 86
+1620%
|
5−6
−1620%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1425%
|
4−5
−1425%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 102
+5000%
|
2−3
−5000%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 100
+2400%
|
4−5
−2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 195
+3800%
|
5−6
−3800%
|
| Hitman 3 | 75
+1775%
|
4−5
−1775%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 186
+1140%
|
14−16
−1140%
|
| Metro Exodus | 105
+3400%
|
3
−3400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 87
+2800%
|
3−4
−2800%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 130−140
+2600%
|
5
−2600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 142
+2740%
|
5
−2740%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 149
+1142%
|
12−14
−1142%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 53
+1667%
|
3−4
−1667%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 59
+2850%
|
2−3
−2850%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 66
+1220%
|
5−6
−1220%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1425%
|
4−5
−1425%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 77
+3750%
|
2−3
−3750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 102
+1940%
|
5−6
−1940%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 123
+720%
|
14−16
−720%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 130−140
+2600%
|
5
−2600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+2367%
|
3
−2367%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 51
+325%
|
12−14
−325%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 83
+2667%
|
3−4
−2667%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80
+3900%
|
2−3
−3900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 85
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 42
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 46
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 66
+1550%
|
4−5
−1550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 87
+4250%
|
2−3
−4250%
|
| Hitman 3 | 54
+671%
|
7−8
−671%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 89
+1680%
|
5−6
−1680%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+2367%
|
3−4
−2367%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 85−90
+1600%
|
5
−1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 37
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 72
+1700%
|
4−5
−1700%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 39
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Hitman 3 | 34
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 31
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 51
+2450%
|
2−3
−2450%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 31
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 61
+2950%
|
2−3
−2950%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 54
+2600%
|
2−3
−2600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 39
+1200%
|
3−4
−1200%
|
This is how GTX 1080 Mobile and GT 710 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1080 Mobile is 1350% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1080 Mobile is 2200% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1080 Mobile is 800% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1080 Mobile is 8400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1080 Mobile surpassed GT 710 in all 54 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 35.61 | 1.63 |
| Recency | 16 August 2016 | 27 March 2014 |
| Cost | $499.99 | $34.99 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 19 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile is a notebook card while GeForce GT 710 is a desktop 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.
