Quadro FX 1800M vs GeForce GT 710

Place in the ranking	952	1048
Place by popularity	83	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.04	no data
Power efficiency	5.94	1.86
Architecture	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GK208	GT215
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	27 March 2014 (10 years ago)	15 June 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$34.99	no data

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 cores	192	72
Core clock speed	954 MHz	561 MHz
Number of transistors	915 million	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	19 Watt	45 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	95 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	15.26	13.46
Floating-point processing power	0.3663 TFLOPS	0.162 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	16	24

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	no data	medium sized
Bus support	PCI Express 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x8	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	145 mm	no data
Height	2.713" (6.9 cm)	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
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	DDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1.8 GB/s	550 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	35.2 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	Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA	No outputs
Multi monitor support	3 displays	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision	+	-
PureVideo	+	-
PhysX	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/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.

GT 710 1.63
+34.7%

FX 1800M 1.21

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.

GT 710 627
+34.5%

FX 1800M 466

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	8 +60%	5−6 −60%
1440p	4 +100%	2−3 −100%
4K	7 +40%	5−6 −40%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.37	no data
1440p	8.75	no data
4K	5.00	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +6.3%	30−35 −6.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5 −60%	8−9 +60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +6.3%	30−35 −6.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5 −60%	8−9 +60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3 −267%	10−12 +267%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +6.3%	30−35 −6.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
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	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

This is how GT 710 and FX 1800M compete in popular games:

GT 710 is 60% faster in 1080p
GT 710 is 100% faster in 1440p
GT 710 is 40% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 710 is 150% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 1800M is 267% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 710 is ahead in 32 tests (68%)
FX 1800M is ahead in 3 tests (6%)
there's a draw in 12 tests (26%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.63	1.21
Recency	27 March 2014	15 June 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	19 Watt	45 Watt

GT 710 has a 34.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 136.8% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 710 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1800M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 710 is a desktop card while Quadro FX 1800M is a mobile workstation one.

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