Radeon PRO V710 vs GeForce GTX 860M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 860M with Radeon PRO V710, including specs and performance data.
PRO V710 outperforms GTX 860M by a whopping 325% 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 | 569 | 192 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 7.49 | 15.12 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 13 January 2014 (11 years ago) | 3 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
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 | 1152 or 640 | 3456 |
| Core clock speed | 797 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1085 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 158 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 43.40 | 432.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.389 TFLOPS | 27.65 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 96 |
| TMUs | 40 | 216 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 54 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 864 KB |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 54 MB |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 28 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 224 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 2500 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80.0 GB/s | 504.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | No outputs |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP content protection | + | - |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | - |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| Ansel | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| 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 | 91
−285%
| 350−400
+285%
|
| Full HD | 37
−305%
| 150−160
+305%
|
| 4K | 13
−323%
| 55−60
+323%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−321%
|
160−170
+321%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−324%
|
140−150
+324%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−321%
|
160−170
+321%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−317%
|
100−105
+317%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−322%
|
190−200
+322%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−324%
|
140−150
+324%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−309%
|
90−95
+309%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−307%
|
110−120
+307%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−280%
|
300−310
+280%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−324%
|
140−150
+324%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−321%
|
160−170
+321%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
−320%
|
500−550
+320%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
−314%
|
240−250
+314%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−317%
|
100−105
+317%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−322%
|
190−200
+322%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−324%
|
140−150
+324%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−309%
|
90−95
+309%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26
−323%
|
110−120
+323%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−307%
|
110−120
+307%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
−325%
|
85−90
+325%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−280%
|
300−310
+280%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−324%
|
140−150
+324%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
−314%
|
240−250
+314%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−317%
|
100−105
+317%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−324%
|
140−150
+324%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−307%
|
110−120
+307%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
−317%
|
50−55
+317%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−280%
|
300−310
+280%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
−322%
|
190−200
+322%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
−321%
|
240−250
+321%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−325%
|
170−180
+325%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−317%
|
350−400
+317%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−317%
|
75−80
+317%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−321%
|
80−85
+321%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−321%
|
160−170
+321%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−307%
|
110−120
+307%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−317%
|
50−55
+317%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
This is how GTX 860M and PRO V710 compete in popular games:
- PRO V710 is 285% faster in 900p
- PRO V710 is 305% faster in 1080p
- PRO V710 is 323% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.98 | 29.69 |
| Recency | 13 January 2014 | 3 October 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 28 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 158 Watt |
GTX 860M has 110.7% lower power consumption.
PRO V710, on the other hand, has a 325.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 600% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO V710 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 860M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 860M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon PRO V710 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
