GeForce GT 710 vs Radeon HD 8770M
Aggregated performance score
Radeon HD 8770M outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 80% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 740 | 903 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 47 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 0.33 | 0.04 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Mars | GK208B |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 16 November 2012 (11 years ago) | 27 March 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $34.99 |
| Current price | $338 | $81 (2.3x MSRP) |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
HD 8770M has 725% better value for money than GT 710.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 192 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 775 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 825 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 19 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 19.80 | 15.26 |
| Floating-point performance | 633.6 gflops | 366.3 gflops |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on Radeon HD 8770M and GeForce GT 710 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 5.7" (14.5 cm) |
| Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4500 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 14.4 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 Connectors | No outputs | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 3 displays |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported GPU Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision | no data | + |
| PureVideo | no data | + |
| PhysX | no data | + |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | no data | + |
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 | 54
+575%
| 8
−575%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
+66.7%
| 3
−66.7%
|
| 4K | 12−14
+71.4%
| 7
−71.4%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5
+25%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−25%
|
5
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+20%
|
5
−20%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−25%
|
5
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3
−33.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+40%
|
5
−40%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+133%
|
3
−133%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
This is how HD 8770M and GT 710 compete in popular games:
- HD 8770M is 575% faster than GT 710 in 1080p
- HD 8770M is 66.7% faster than GT 710 in 1440p
- HD 8770M is 71.4% faster than GT 710 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 8770M is 500% faster than the GT 710.
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 710 is 25% faster than the HD 8770M.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8770M is ahead in 35 tests (81%)
- GT 710 is ahead in 3 tests (7%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (12%)
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 2.94 | 1.63 |
| Recency | 16 November 2012 | 27 March 2014 |
The Radeon HD 8770M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8770M is a notebook card while GeForce GT 710 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
