GeForce GT 710 vs GTX 670MX SLI

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 670MX SLI with GeForce GT 710, including specs and performance data.

GTX 670MX SLI
2012
150 Watt
8.53
+509%

GTX 670MX SLI outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 509% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking469971
Place by popularitynot in top-10063
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.04
Power efficiency4.525.86
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code nameN13E-GRGK208
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 October 2012 (12 years ago)27 March 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$34.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores1920192
Core clock speed600 MHz954 MHz
Number of transistors5080 Million915 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt19 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data95 °C
Texture fill rateno data15.26
Floating-point processing powerno data0.3663 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data16

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 2.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x8
Lengthno data145 mm
Heightno data2.713" (6.9 cm)
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus width2x 192 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed2800 MHz1.8 GB/s
Memory bandwidthno data14.4 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 Connectorsno dataDual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA
Multi monitor supportno data3 displays
HDMI-+
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Vision-+
PureVideo-+
PhysX-+
Optimus+-

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1112 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.5
OpenCLno data1.2
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 HD71
+788%
8
−788%
1440p18−20
+500%
3
−500%
4K40−45
+471%
7
−471%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.37
1440pno data11.66
4Kno data5.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+513%
8−9
−513%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+1267%
3−4
−1267%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+513%
8−9
−513%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+520%
5
−520%
Fortnite 55−60
+1020%
5−6
−1020%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+400%
8−9
−400%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
Valorant 90−95
+150%
35−40
−150%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+1267%
3−4
−1267%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+513%
8−9
−513%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 168
+409%
30−35
−409%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Dota 2 65−70
+235%
20
−235%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+675%
4
−675%
Fortnite 55−60
+1020%
5−6
−1020%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+400%
8−9
−400%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+289%
9
−289%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+500%
3
−500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+380%
5
−380%
Valorant 90−95
+150%
35−40
−150%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+1267%
3−4
−1267%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Dota 2 65−70
+272%
18
−272%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+675%
4
−675%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+400%
8−9
−400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+700%
3
−700%
Valorant 90−95
+150%
35−40
−150%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+1020%
5−6
−1020%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+610%
10−11
−610%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+229%
14−16
−229%
Valorant 100−110
+1188%
8−9
−1188%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+33.3%
14−16
−33.3%
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Valorant 45−50
+513%
8−9
−513%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 30−35
+386%
7
−386%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

This is how GTX 670MX SLI and GT 710 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 670MX SLI is 788% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 670MX SLI is 500% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 670MX SLI is 471% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 670MX SLI is 1500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 670MX SLI surpassed GT 710 in all 48 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.53 1.40
Recency 1 October 2012 27 March 2014
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 19 Watt

GTX 670MX SLI has a 509.3% higher aggregate performance score.

GT 710, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 689.5% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 670MX SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 670MX SLI is a notebook card while GeForce GT 710 is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX SLI
GeForce GTX 670MX SLI
NVIDIA GeForce GT 710
GeForce GT 710

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 3 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 670MX SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 4438 votes

Rate GeForce GT 710 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 670MX SLI or GeForce GT 710, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.