GeForce GT 710 vs GTX 690
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 690 and GeForce GT 710, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 690 outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 784% 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 | 408 | 1005 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 73 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.27 | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 3.32 | 5.93 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GK208 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 May 2012 (13 years ago) | 27 March 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | $34.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 690 has 3075% better value for money than GT 710.
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 | 3072 ×2 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1019 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 130.4 ×2 | 15.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.13 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.3663 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 ×2 | 8 |
| TMUs | 128 ×2 | 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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | 279 mm | 145 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 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 | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 ×2 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512-bit (256-bit per GPU) ×2 | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 384 GB/s ×2 | 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 | Two Dual Link DVI-I. One Dual link DVI-D. One Mini-Displayport 1.2 | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | 3 displays |
| HDMI | Yes (via dongle) | + |
| HDCP | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | - | + |
| PureVideo | - | + |
| PhysX | - | + |
| 3D Vision Live | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
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 | 4.2 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.1.126 |
| 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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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 | 70−75
+775%
| 8
−775%
|
| 1440p | 24−27
+700%
| 3
−700%
|
| 4K | 60−65
+757%
| 7
−757%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 14.27
−226%
| 4.37
+226%
|
| 1440p | 41.63
−257%
| 11.66
+257%
|
| 4K | 16.65
−233%
| 5.00
+233%
|
- GT 710 has 226% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GT 710 has 257% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GT 710 has 233% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
+0%
|
3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
+0%
|
3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how GTX 690 and GT 710 compete in popular games:
- GTX 690 is 775% faster in 1080p
- GTX 690 is 700% faster in 1440p
- GTX 690 is 757% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 50 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.09 | 1.48 |
| Recency | 3 May 2012 | 27 March 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 19 Watt |
GTX 690 has a 784.5% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GT 710, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 1478.9% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 690 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
