Quadro RTX 5000 vs GeForce GT 710
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 710 with Quadro RTX 5000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5000 outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 2429% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 958 | 97 |
| Place by popularity | 72 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | 14.50 |
| Power efficiency | 5.91 | 12.34 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | TU104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $34.99 | $2,299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 5000 has 36150% 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 | 192 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 1620 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1815 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 230 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 15.26 | 348.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3663 TFLOPS | 11.15 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
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 | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 2.713" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 type | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1.8 GB/s | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 448.0 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 | 4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
| 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) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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
−2400%
| 200−210
+2400%
|
| 1440p | 4
−2400%
| 100−110
+2400%
|
| 4K | 6
−2400%
| 150−160
+2400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.37
+163%
| 11.50
−163%
|
| 1440p | 8.75
+163%
| 22.99
−163%
|
| 4K | 5.83
+163%
| 15.33
−163%
|
- GT 710 has 163% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GT 710 has 163% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GT 710 has 163% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−2344%
|
220−230
+2344%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2400%
|
100−105
+2400%
|
| Elden Ring | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−2344%
|
220−230
+2344%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2400%
|
100−105
+2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8
−2400%
|
200−210
+2400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5
−2300%
|
120−130
+2300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−2329%
|
170−180
+2329%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−2344%
|
220−230
+2344%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2400%
|
100−105
+2400%
|
| Dota 2 | 12
−2400%
|
300−310
+2400%
|
| Elden Ring | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−2233%
|
350−400
+2233%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−2400%
|
200−210
+2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5
−2300%
|
120−130
+2300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
−2344%
|
220−230
+2344%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4
−2400%
|
100−105
+2400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−2253%
|
400−450
+2253%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−2329%
|
170−180
+2329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−2400%
|
200−210
+2400%
|
| World of Tanks | 30−35
−2324%
|
800−850
+2324%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−2344%
|
220−230
+2344%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2400%
|
100−105
+2400%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
−2400%
|
450−500
+2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−2400%
|
300−310
+2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5
−2300%
|
120−130
+2300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−2253%
|
400−450
+2253%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−2400%
|
250−260
+2400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| World of Tanks | 10−11
−2400%
|
250−260
+2400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−2344%
|
220−230
+2344%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−2300%
|
120−130
+2300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5
−2300%
|
120−130
+2300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−2400%
|
75−80
+2400%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−2329%
|
170−180
+2329%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−2400%
|
400−450
+2400%
|
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−2233%
|
350−400
+2233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−2400%
|
100−105
+2400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−2233%
|
350−400
+2233%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
−2329%
|
170−180
+2329%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5
−2300%
|
120−130
+2300%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
This is how GT 710 and RTX 5000 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5000 is 2400% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5000 is 2400% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5000 is 2400% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.63 | 41.23 |
| Recency | 27 March 2014 | 13 August 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 230 Watt |
GT 710 has 1110.5% lower power consumption.
RTX 5000, on the other hand, has a 2429.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro RTX 5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 710 is a desktop card while Quadro RTX 5000 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
