GeForce GT 710 vs Radeon R9 Nano
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 Nano and GeForce GT 710, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 Nano outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 1261% 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 | 268 | 973 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 63 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.26 | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 8.58 | 5.81 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | GK208 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 27 August 2015 (9 years ago) | 27 March 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $34.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
R9 Nano has 13050% better value for money than GT 710.
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 | 4096 | 192 |
| Compute units | 64 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 954 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 256.0 | 15.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.192 TFLOPS | 0.3663 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 256 | 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | 152 mm | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | DDR3 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 3 displays |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
| 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.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| 3D Vision | - | + |
| PureVideo | - | + |
| PhysX | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 91
+1038%
| 8
−1038%
|
| 1440p | 40−45
+1233%
| 3
−1233%
|
| 4K | 46
+557%
| 7
−557%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.13
−63.1%
| 4.37
+63.1%
|
| 1440p | 16.23
−39.1%
| 11.66
+39.1%
|
| 4K | 14.11
−182%
| 5.00
+182%
|
- GT 710 has 63% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GT 710 has 39% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GT 710 has 182% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+1388%
|
8−9
−1388%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 40−45
+720%
|
5−6
−720%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+2733%
|
3−4
−2733%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+1388%
|
8−9
−1388%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+1280%
|
5
−1280%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+2040%
|
5−6
−2040%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+950%
|
8−9
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 40−45
+720%
|
5−6
−720%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+690%
|
10−11
−690%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+317%
|
35−40
−317%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+2733%
|
3−4
−2733%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+1388%
|
8−9
−1388%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+627%
|
30−35
−627%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+465%
|
20
−465%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+1625%
|
4
−1625%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+2040%
|
5−6
−2040%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+950%
|
8−9
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+756%
|
9
−756%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 40−45
+720%
|
5−6
−720%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+1400%
|
3
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+690%
|
10−11
−690%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+1080%
|
5
−1080%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+317%
|
35−40
−317%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+2733%
|
3−4
−2733%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+528%
|
18
−528%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+1625%
|
4
−1625%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+950%
|
8−9
−950%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 40−45
+720%
|
5−6
−720%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+690%
|
10−11
−690%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+1467%
|
3
−1467%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+317%
|
35−40
−317%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 100−110
+2040%
|
5−6
−2040%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+1380%
|
10−11
−1380%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1640%
|
10−11
−1640%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+1989%
|
9−10
−1989%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1350%
|
4−5
−1350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+1667%
|
3−4
−1667%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+153%
|
14−16
−153%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1375%
|
8−9
−1375%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+900%
|
7
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
This is how R9 Nano and GT 710 compete in popular games:
- R9 Nano is 1038% faster in 1080p
- R9 Nano is 1233% faster in 1440p
- R9 Nano is 557% 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 R9 Nano is 4300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 Nano surpassed GT 710 in all 49 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.23 | 1.56 |
| Recency | 27 August 2015 | 27 March 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 19 Watt |
R9 Nano has a 1260.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GT 710, on the other hand, has 821.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 Nano is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 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.
