GeForce GT 710 vs GTX 280M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 280M SLI with GeForce GT 710, including specs and performance data.
GTX 280M SLI outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 111% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 733 | 960 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 68 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 1.58 | 5.91 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GTX | GK208 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 27 March 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $34.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 256 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 585 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 15.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.3663 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
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 | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 950 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | no data | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 3 displays |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| 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 | - | + |
| PureVideo | - | + |
| PhysX | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.126 |
| 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 | 16−18
+100%
| 8
−100%
|
| 1440p | 8−9
+100%
| 4
−100%
|
| 4K | 12−14
+100%
| 6
−100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.37 |
| 1440p | no data | 8.75 |
| 4K | no data | 5.83 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+100%
|
8
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5
+25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+40%
|
5
−40%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−20%
|
12
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+26.7%
|
15
−26.7%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+220%
|
5
−220%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9
−11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+75%
|
4
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+82.4%
|
16−18
−82.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| World of Tanks | 60−65
+81.8%
|
30−35
−81.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−80%
|
18
+80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+220%
|
5
−220%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+82.4%
|
16−18
−82.4%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+129%
|
7
−129%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−150%
|
5
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how GTX 280M SLI and GT 710 compete in popular games:
- GTX 280M SLI is 100% faster in 1080p
- GTX 280M SLI is 100% faster in 1440p
- GTX 280M SLI is 100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 280M SLI is 350% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 710 is 150% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 280M SLI is ahead in 42 tests (82%)
- GT 710 is ahead in 5 tests (10%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (8%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.40 | 1.61 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 27 March 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 19 Watt |
GTX 280M SLI has a 111.2% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 710, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 689.5% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 280M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 280M SLI 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
