GeForce GT 710 vs Radeon Pro 460

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 460 with GeForce GT 710, including specs and performance data.

Pro 460
2016
4 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
7.72
+451%

Pro 460 outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 451% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking498967
Place by popularitynot in top-10063
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.04
Power efficiency17.565.87
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code nameBaffinGK208
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date30 October 2016 (8 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 cores1024192
Core clock speed850 MHz954 MHz
Boost clock speed907 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,000 million915 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt19 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data95 °C
Texture fill rate58.0515.26
Floating-point processing power1.858 TFLOPS0.3663 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs6416

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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x8
Lengthno data145 mm
Heightno data2.713" (6.9 cm)
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1270 MHz1.8 GB/s
Memory bandwidth81.28 GB/s14.4 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 outputsDual 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.

FreeSync+-
3D Vision-+
PureVideo-+
PhysX-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.126
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.

Pro 460 7.72
+451%
GT 710 1.40

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
    • 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

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.

Pro 460 3452
+452%
GT 710 625

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.

Pro 460 4584
+384%
GT 710 947

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Pro 460 27064
+272%
GT 710 7270

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 HD41
+413%
8
−413%
1440p16−18
+433%
3
−433%
4K35−40
+400%
7
−400%

Cost per frame, $

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

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+514%
7−8
−514%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Atomic Heart 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+1133%
3−4
−1133%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+514%
7−8
−514%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+440%
5
−440%
Fortnite 50−55
+920%
5−6
−920%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+363%
8−9
−363%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+200%
10−11
−200%
Valorant 80−85
+133%
35−40
−133%
Atomic Heart 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+1133%
3−4
−1133%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+514%
7−8
−514%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+294%
30−35
−294%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Dota 2 60−65
+210%
20
−210%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+575%
4
−575%
Fortnite 50−55
+920%
5−6
−920%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+363%
8−9
−363%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+244%
9
−244%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+467%
3
−467%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+200%
10−11
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+480%
5
−480%
Valorant 80−85
+133%
35−40
−133%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+1133%
3−4
−1133%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Dota 2 60−65
+244%
18
−244%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+575%
4
−575%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+363%
8−9
−363%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+200%
10−11
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+467%
3
−467%
Valorant 80−85
+133%
35−40
−133%
Fortnite 50−55
+920%
5−6
−920%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 60−65
+540%
10−11
−540%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+207%
14−16
−207%
Valorant 90−95
+1075%
8−9
−1075%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Fortnite 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Atomic Heart 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+26.7%
14−16
−26.7%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Valorant 40−45
+450%
8−9
−450%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 30−35
+343%
7
−343%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Fortnite 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%

This is how Pro 460 and GT 710 compete in popular games:

  • Pro 460 is 413% faster in 1080p
  • Pro 460 is 433% faster in 1440p
  • Pro 460 is 400% 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 Pro 460 is 1300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Pro 460 surpassed GT 710 in all 48 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.72 1.40
Recency 30 October 2016 27 March 2014
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 19 Watt

Pro 460 has a 451.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

GT 710, on the other hand, has 84.2% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 460 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 460 is a mobile workstation 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.


AMD Radeon Pro 460
Radeon Pro 460
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.


4
35 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 460 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1
4428 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro 460 or GeForce GT 710, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.