GeForce 710A vs Radeon R9 M295X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M295X and GeForce 710A, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 M295X outperforms 710A by a whopping 959% 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 | 427 | 1089 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.75 | 2.68 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | GF117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 November 2014 (10 years ago) | 1 April 2013 (12 years 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 | 2048 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 723 MHz | 775 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 92.54 | 12.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.961 TFLOPS | 0.2976 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 128 | 16 |
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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | Not Listed | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 0 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | Not Listed | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | Not Listed | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 2.1 |
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.
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:
| Full HD | 48
+1100%
| 4−5
−1100%
|
| 4K | 26
+1200%
| 2−3
−1200%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+1050%
|
6−7
−1050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| God of War | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1000%
|
5−6
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+1050%
|
6−7
−1050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1117%
|
6−7
−1117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+960%
|
5−6
−960%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+1200%
|
3−4
−1200%
|
| God of War | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+990%
|
10−11
−990%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1000%
|
5−6
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+1050%
|
6−7
−1050%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
+1006%
|
16−18
−1006%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+1086%
|
7−8
−1086%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1117%
|
6−7
−1117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+960%
|
5−6
−960%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+1200%
|
3−4
−1200%
|
| God of War | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+990%
|
10−11
−990%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1000%
|
5−6
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+1086%
|
7−8
−1086%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+960%
|
5−6
−960%
|
| God of War | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+990%
|
10−11
−990%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1117%
|
6−7
−1117%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 90−95
+1075%
|
8−9
−1075%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+1000%
|
9−10
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+1000%
|
12−14
−1000%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| God of War | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+1017%
|
6−7
−1017%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| God of War | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
This is how R9 M295X and GeForce 710A compete in popular games:
- R9 M295X is 1100% faster in 1080p
- R9 M295X is 1200% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.29 | 1.16 |
| Recency | 23 November 2014 | 1 April 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 33 Watt |
R9 M295X has a 959.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
GeForce 710A, on the other hand, has 657.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 M295X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 710A in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
