UHD Graphics 710 vs GeForce GTX 260M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 260M with UHD Graphics 710, including specs and performance data.
UHD Graphics 710 outperforms GTX 260M by a whopping 188% 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 | 1161 | 841 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.07 | 13.31 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Generation 12.2 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | G92 | Alder Lake GT1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 March 2009 (16 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
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 | 112 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.80 | 10.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.308 TFLOPS | 0.3328 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 462 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 56 | 8 |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | Ring Bus |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| SLI options | 2-way | - |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | 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 | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 950 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 61 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 | 29
−176%
| 80−85
+176%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−183%
|
85−90
+183%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−183%
|
65−70
+183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−186%
|
40−45
+186%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−183%
|
85−90
+183%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−186%
|
40−45
+186%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−183%
|
85−90
+183%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| God of War | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
This is how GTX 260M and UHD Graphics 710 compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics 710 is 176% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.91 | 2.62 |
| Recency | 3 March 2009 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 15 Watt |
UHD Graphics 710 has a 187.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 550% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.
The UHD Graphics 710 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 260M is a notebook graphics card while UHD Graphics 710 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
