ATI Radeon HD 3870 vs GeForce 710M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 710M with Radeon HD 3870, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 710M
2013
1 GB DDR3, 15 Watt
1.19

ATI HD 3870 outperforms 710M by a significant 21% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1052989
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.04
Power efficiency5.510.94
ArchitectureKepler 2.0 (2013−2015)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameGK208RV670
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date24 July 2013 (11 years ago)19 November 2007 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$269

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores192320
Core clock speed719 MHz777 MHz
Boost clock speed800 MHzno data
Number of transistors915 million666 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt106 Watt
Texture fill rate11.5012.43
Floating-point processing power0.2761 TFLOPS0.4973 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs1616

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin

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 typeDDR3GDDR4
Maximum RAM amount1 GB512 MB
Standard memory configurationDDR3no data
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1126 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s72.06 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 outputs2x DVI, 1x S-Video
eDP 1.2 signal supportUp to 2560x1600no data
LVDS signal supportUp to 1920x1200no data
VGA аnalog display supportUp to 2048x1536no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportUp to 2560x1600no data
HDMI+-
HDCP content protection+-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI+-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Blu-Ray 3D Support+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API10.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.1N/A
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
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. 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.

GeForce 710M 1.19
ATI HD 3870 1.44
+21%

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.

GeForce 710M 459
ATI HD 3870 555
+20.9%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−9.4%
35−40
+9.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−9.4%
35−40
+9.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−9.4%
35−40
+9.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.19 1.44
Recency 24 July 2013 19 November 2007
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 106 Watt

GeForce 710M has an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 606.7% lower power consumption.

ATI HD 3870, on the other hand, has a 21% higher aggregate performance score.

The Radeon HD 3870 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 710M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 710M is a notebook card while Radeon HD 3870 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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.


NVIDIA GeForce 710M
GeForce 710M
ATI Radeon HD 3870
Radeon HD 3870

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.2 666 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 161 vote

Rate Radeon HD 3870 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.