NVS 810 vs GeForce GT 720M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 720M with NVS 810, including specs and performance data.
NVS 810 outperforms GT 720M by a whopping 161% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1061 | 767 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.48 | 3.14 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | GM107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 25 December 2013 (11 years ago) | 4 November 2015 (9 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 | 192 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 719 MHz | 902 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 758 MHz | 1033 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 68 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.13 | 33.06 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2911 TFLOPS | 1.058 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 16 | 32 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 198 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | DDR3 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | No outputs | 8x mini-DisplayPort |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 2560x1600 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 2560x1600 | no 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.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 5.0 |
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.
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 | 13
−131%
| 30−35
+131%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Dota 2 | 11
−145%
|
27−30
+145%
|
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20
−150%
|
50−55
+150%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
−150%
|
65−70
+150%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
−150%
|
45−50
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−140%
|
24−27
+140%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
This is how GT 720M and NVS 810 compete in popular games:
- NVS 810 is 131% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.19 | 3.10 |
| Recency | 25 December 2013 | 4 November 2015 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 68 Watt |
GT 720M has 106.1% lower power consumption.
NVS 810, on the other hand, has a 160.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
The NVS 810 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 720M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 720M is a notebook card while NVS 810 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.
