GeForce GT 710 vs Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire with GeForce GT 710, including specs and performance data.
HD 7970M Crossfire outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 883% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 347 | 966 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 69 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 5.49 | 5.88 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | Wimbledon XT | GK208 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 27 March 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $34.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2560 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 15.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.3663 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 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 | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | 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 |
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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | no data | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 3 displays |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision | - | + |
| PureVideo | - | + |
| PhysX | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | + |
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:
| 900p | 132
+1000%
| 12−14
−1000%
|
| Full HD | 102
+1175%
| 8
−1175%
|
| 1440p | 27−30
+800%
| 3
−800%
|
| 4K | 65−70
+829%
| 7
−829%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.37 |
| 1440p | no data | 11.66 |
| 4K | no data | 5.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+2067%
|
3−4
−2067%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+920%
|
5
−920%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+1580%
|
5−6
−1580%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+688%
|
8−9
−688%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+720%
|
5
−720%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+450%
|
10−11
−450%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+239%
|
35−40
−239%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+2067%
|
3−4
−2067%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+506%
|
30−35
−506%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+370%
|
20
−370%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+1175%
|
4
−1175%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+1580%
|
5−6
−1580%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+688%
|
8−9
−688%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+533%
|
9
−533%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+933%
|
3
−933%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+450%
|
10−11
−450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+720%
|
5
−720%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+239%
|
35−40
−239%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+2067%
|
3−4
−2067%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+422%
|
18
−422%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+1175%
|
4
−1175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+688%
|
8−9
−688%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+450%
|
10−11
−450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+1267%
|
3
−1267%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+239%
|
35−40
−239%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 80−85
+1580%
|
5−6
−1580%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+1010%
|
10−11
−1010%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1390%
|
10−11
−1390%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+1600%
|
9−10
−1600%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+86.7%
|
14−16
−86.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+938%
|
8−9
−938%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+657%
|
7
−657%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
This is how HD 7970M Crossfire and GT 710 compete in popular games:
- HD 7970M Crossfire is 1000% faster in 900p
- HD 7970M Crossfire is 1175% faster in 1080p
- HD 7970M Crossfire is 800% faster in 1440p
- HD 7970M Crossfire is 829% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 7970M Crossfire is 4000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, HD 7970M Crossfire surpassed GT 710 in all 55 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.03 | 1.63 |
| Recency | 1 May 2012 | 27 March 2014 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 19 Watt |
HD 7970M Crossfire has a 883.4% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 710, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 952.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire is a notebook card while GeForce GT 710 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
