GeForce GT 710 vs GTX 485M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 485M with GeForce GT 710, including specs and performance data.
485M outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 281% 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 | 647 | 1024 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 72 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 4.33 | 5.99 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | GK208 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 27 March 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $34.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 384 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1150 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 36.80 | 15.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8832 TFLOPS | 0.3663 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 128 KB |
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 | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | 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 | None | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 96.0 GB/s | 14.4 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 | No outputs | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 3 displays |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D 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 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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:
| 900p | 48
+300%
| 12−14
−300%
|
| Full HD | 66
+725%
| 8
−725%
|
| 1440p | 10−12
+233%
| 3
−233%
|
| 4K | 24−27
+243%
| 7
−243%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.37 |
| 1440p | no data | 11.66 |
| 4K | no data | 5.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+260%
|
5
−260%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+580%
|
5−6
−580%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+91.4%
|
35−40
−91.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+191%
|
30−35
−191%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+135%
|
20
−135%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+350%
|
4
−350%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+580%
|
5−6
−580%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+122%
|
9
−122%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+267%
|
3
−267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+220%
|
5
−220%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+91.4%
|
35−40
−91.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+161%
|
18
−161%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+350%
|
4
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+433%
|
3
−433%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+91.4%
|
35−40
−91.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+580%
|
5−6
−580%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+340%
|
10−11
−340%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+153%
|
14−16
−153%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+800%
|
7−8
−800%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 27−30
+314%
|
7−8
−314%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+186%
|
7
−186%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
This is how GTX 485M and GT 710 compete in popular games:
- GTX 485M is 300% faster in 900p
- GTX 485M is 725% faster in 1080p
- GTX 485M is 233% faster in 1440p
- GTX 485M is 243% 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 485M is 1100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 485M surpassed GT 710 in all 50 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.64 | 1.48 |
| Recency | 5 January 2011 | 27 March 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 19 Watt |
GTX 485M has a 281.1% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 710, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 426.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 485M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 485M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GT 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.
