GeForce GT 710 vs Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Aggregated performance score
Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 68% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 765 | 904 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 48 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.04 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Kaveri Spectre | GK208B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 January 2014 (10 years ago) | 27 March 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $34.99 |
| Current price | no data | $81 (2.3x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 720 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 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 | no data | 15.26 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 366.3 gflops |
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 | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | 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 |
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 | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 data | 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 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 (FL 12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1.1.126 |
| 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 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 68% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 48% 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 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 33% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms GeForce GT 710 by 28% in 3DMark Ice Storm 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 | 14
+75%
| 8
−75%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
+66.7%
| 3
−66.7%
|
| 4K | 10−12
+42.9%
| 7
−42.9%
|
FPS 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 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5
+66.7%
|
| 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 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5
+66.7%
|
| 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 | 6−7
+20%
|
5
−20%
|
| 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 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+100%
|
3
−100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| 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 |
| 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 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and GT 710 compete in popular games:
- R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 75% faster than GT 710 in 1080p
- R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 66.7% faster than GT 710 in 1440p
- R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 42.9% 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 R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 500% faster than the GT 710.
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 710 is 66.7% faster than the R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop).
All in all, in popular games:
- R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is ahead in 33 tests (77%)
- GT 710 is ahead in 3 tests (7%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (16%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.74 | 1.63 |
| Recency | 14 January 2014 | 27 March 2014 |
The Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
