Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce GT 710 vs Radeon R7 250
Aggregated performance score
R7 250
2013
2048 MB DDR3, GDDR5
2.77
+69.9%
GT 710
2014
2 GB DDR3
1.63
Radeon R7 250 outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 70% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 760 | 903 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 52 |
| Value for money | 0.10 | 0.04 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Oland XT | GK208B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 1 October 2013 (10 years old) | 27 March 2014 (10 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | $34.99 |
| Current price | $256 (2.9x MSRP) | $81 (2.3x MSRP) |
Value for money
R7 250 has 150% better value for money than GT 710.
Technical specs
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 | no data | 954 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 25.20 | 15.26 |
| Floating-point performance | 716.8 gflops | 366.3 gflops |
Size and 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 | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | 168 mm | 5.7" (14.5 cm) |
| Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | N/A | None |
Memory
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 | DDR3, GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 3 displays |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | - | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | no data |
| CrossFire | 1 | no data |
| Enduro | - | no data |
| FreeSync | 1 | no data |
| HD3D | - | no data |
| PowerTune | - | no data |
| TrueAudio | - | no data |
| ZeroCore | - | no data |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| 3D Vision | no data | + |
| PureVideo | no data | + |
| PhysX | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1.1.126 |
| Mantle | - | no data |
| CUDA | no data | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Radeon R7 250 outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 70% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Radeon R7 250 outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 70% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Radeon R7 250 outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 127% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Radeon R7 250 outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 107% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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 | 19
+138%
| 8
−138%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
+66.7%
| 3
−66.7%
|
| 4K | 10−12
+42.9%
| 7
−42.9%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
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 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| 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 | 5−6
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| 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 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
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 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| 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 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| 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 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| 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 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
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 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| 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 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 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 R7 250 and GT 710 compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- R7 250 is 138% faster than GT 710
1440p resolution:
- R7 250 is 66.7% faster than GT 710
4K resolution:
- R7 250 is 42.9% faster than GT 710
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R7 250 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 R7 250.
All in all, in popular games:
- R7 250 is ahead in 34 tests (79%)
- GT 710 is ahead in 3 tests (7%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (14%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 2.77 | 1.63 |
| Recency | 1 October 2013 | 27 March 2014 |
| Cost | $89 | $34.99 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
The Radeon R7 250 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
