GeForce GT 710M vs GTX 560 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 560 Ti with GeForce GT 710M, including specs and performance data.
560 Ti outperforms 710M by a whopping 616% 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 | 578 | 1140 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.53 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.30 | 5.22 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | GF117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 9 January 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | no data |
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 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 823 MHz | 775 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 52.67 | 12.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.263 TFLOPS | 0.2976 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 128 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1002 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.3 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
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 | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 2.1 |
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.
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.
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 | 63
+688%
| 8−9
−688%
|
| Full HD | 65
+622%
| 9−10
−622%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.83 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+660%
|
5−6
−660%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+660%
|
5−6
−660%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+650%
|
6−7
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+680%
|
10−11
−680%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+660%
|
5−6
−660%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+644%
|
16−18
−644%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+714%
|
7−8
−714%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+650%
|
6−7
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+680%
|
10−11
−680%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+714%
|
7−8
−714%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+680%
|
10−11
−680%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+650%
|
6−7
−650%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+714%
|
7−8
−714%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+700%
|
5−6
−700%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+740%
|
10−11
−740%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+660%
|
5−6
−660%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 560 Ti and GT 710M compete in popular games:
- GTX 560 Ti is 688% faster in 900p
- GTX 560 Ti is 622% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.95 | 0.97 |
| Recency | 25 January 2011 | 9 January 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 15 Watt |
GTX 560 Ti has a 616.5% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 710M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 1033.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 560 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 560 Ti is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GT 710M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
