GeForce GT 710 vs GTX 280M

Place in the ranking	976	952
Place by popularity	not in top-100	83
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.04
Power efficiency	1.37	5.93
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code name	G92	GK208
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	3 March 2009 (15 years ago)	27 March 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$34.99

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	128	192
Core clock speed	585 MHz	954 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	915 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	19 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	95 °C
Texture fill rate	37.44	15.26
Floating-point processing power	0.3745 TFLOPS	0.3663 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	562	no data
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	64	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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	PCI Express 2.0
Interface	MXM-IV	PCIe 2.0 x8
Length	no data	145 mm
Height	no data	2.713" (6.9 cm)
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None
SLI options	+	-
MXM Type	MXM 3.0 Type-B	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	GDDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 950 MHz	1.8 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	61 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	HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIDisplayPortLVDSVGA	Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA
Multi monitor support	no data	3 displays
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	Internal

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision	-	+
PureVideo	-	+
PhysX	-	+
Power management	8.0	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	2.1	4.5
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.126
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.

GTX 280M 1.49

GT 710 1.63
+9.4%

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.

GTX 280M 575

GT 710 627
+9%

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	7−8 −14.3%	8 +14.3%
1440p	3−4 −33.3%	4 +33.3%
4K	6−7 −16.7%	7 +16.7%

Cost per frame, $

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −3%	30−35 +3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +60%	5 −60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −3%	30−35 +3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +60%	5 −60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +267%	3 −267%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −3%	30−35 +3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +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	1−2
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	0−1	1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5 +0%	5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

This is how GTX 280M and GT 710 compete in popular games:

GT 710 is 14% faster in 1080p
GT 710 is 33% faster in 1440p
GT 710 is 17% faster in 4K

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

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 280M is 267% faster.
in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 710 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 280M is ahead in 3 tests (6%)
GT 710 is ahead in 16 tests (31%)
there's a draw in 32 tests (63%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.49	1.63
Recency	3 March 2009	27 March 2014
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	19 Watt

GT 710 has a 9.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 294.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 280M and GeForce GT 710.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 280M is a notebook card while GeForce GT 710 is a desktop one.

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