GeForce GT 710 vs GTX 285

Place in the ranking	700	955
Place by popularity	not in top-100	71
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.31	0.04
Power efficiency	1.32	5.88
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code name	GT200B	GK208
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	23 December 2008 (16 years ago)	27 March 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$359	$34.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 285 has 675% 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	240	192
Core clock speed	648 MHz	954 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	915 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	204 Watt	19 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	95 °C
Texture fill rate	51.84	15.26
Floating-point processing power	0.7085 TFLOPS	0.3663 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	80	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).

Bus support	no data	PCI Express 2.0
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x8
Length	267 mm	145 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	2.713" (6.9 cm)
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	None
SLI options	+	-

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	512 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1242 MHz	1.8 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	159.0 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	HDTVTwo Dual Link DVI	Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA
Multi monitor support	+	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.

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)	128bit	no data
3D Vision	-	+
PureVideo	-	+
PhysX	-	+

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 285 3.93
+141%

GT 710 1.63

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 285 1513
+141%

GT 710 627

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	18−20 +125%	8 −125%
1440p	9−10 +125%	4 −125%
4K	14−16 +133%	6 −133%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	19.94	4.37
1440p	39.89	8.75
4K	25.64	5.83

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	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
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	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
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	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5 +0%	5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

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

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	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
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%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5 +0%	5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

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	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
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%	1−2 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5 +0%	5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

This is how GTX 285 and GT 710 compete in popular games:

GTX 285 is 125% faster in 1080p
GTX 285 is 125% faster in 1440p
GTX 285 is 133% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 53 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.93	1.63
Recency	23 December 2008	27 March 2014
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	204 Watt	19 Watt

GTX 285 has a 141.1% higher aggregate performance score.

GT 710, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 973.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 285 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.

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