GPU Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data offers a clear, if lopsided, comparison between these two mobile GPUs. The sole directly comparable result in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M dominates decisively. It scores 10,461 points against the NVIDIA GeForce 710M’s 2,433 points, a margin of 330%. This is not a marginal victory; it is a categorical gap that places the two parts in entirely different performance strata.

The GTX 860M’s average benchmark score across all tested workloads is 2,967, while the 710M’s average sits at 2,433. The difference of roughly 22% in average score masks the severity of the OpenCL result, but it also reflects the broader reality: the 860M is in the 19th percentile of all GPUs, while the 710M is in the 16th percentile. Both are low on the absolute scale, yet the 860M’s raw compute advantage is what separates them in any compute-heavy task.

Looking at the GTX 860M’s nearest rivals, it sits within a tight cluster. It is a mere 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti (average score 2,953) and 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P600 (2,923). Interestingly, it trails the NVIDIA GeForce 820A by 0.5% (2,983) and beats the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB by 1.9% (2,913). That last comparison underscores how benchmark averages can flatten generational differences, the 860M’s average is competitive with a modern card in this specific metric, despite being end-of-life hardware.

For the 710M, the nearest rival data paints a less flattering picture. It is 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon 8040S (2,440), 0.4% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 610 (2,425), 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M (2,422), and 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7400 (2,467). The 710M’s performance niche is essentially integrated-graphics territory, which aligns with its modest specifications. The GTX 860M, by contrast, is competing with entry-level discrete desktop cards, not iGPUs.

The head-to-head data also shows that the GTX 860M wins the only shared benchmark, and the 710M wins none. That is not a statistical artifact; it is the expected outcome given the compute resources each chip brings to bear. The GTX 860M’s OpenCL score of 10,461 is more than four times the 710M’s 2,433, and no other test in the database allows for a direct comparison, leaving the 710M with no countervailing evidence of superiority.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 860M than the 710M in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 860M scores 10,461 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the 710M scores 2,433. This represents a 330% advantage for the GTX 860M, making it the clear winner in compute workloads.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 860M has an average benchmark score of 2,967, compared to the 710M’s 2,433. The 860M’s average is also supported by a broader set of test results, including DirectX 9/10/11/12 and compute workloads, whereas the 710M only has an OpenCL score listed.

Q: How does the GTX 860M compare to its closest rival, the GTX 750 Ti?

A: The GTX 860M’s average score of 2,967 is 0.5% higher than the GTX 750 Ti’s 2,953. The two are effectively tied in aggregate performance, despite the 860M being a mobile part.

Q: Is the 710M competitive with modern integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The 710M’s average score of 2,433 is 0.4% above the Intel HD Graphics 610 (2,425) and 0.3% below the AMD Radeon 8040S (2,440). It sits squarely in the iGPU performance band.

Q: Does the GTX 860M outperform the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB in any metric?

A: In average benchmark score, the GTX 860M leads the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB by 1.9% (2,967 vs 2,913). This is a narrow margin and does not reflect real-world gaming or feature support, but it is what the aggregate data shows.

Q: Why does the 710M lack DirectX 12 or Vulkan scores?

A: The database lists only a Geekbench OpenCL score for the 710M. Its API support includes DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan is not listed. The GTX 860M, by contrast, has Vulkan 1.2.175 support and multiple DirectX benchmark results.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from NVIDIA. The GTX 860M uses the GK104 chip, which is based on the Kepler architecture, while the 710M uses the GF117 chip, based on Fermi 2.0. This architectural divide explains much of the performance gap.

The GTX 860M is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, packing 3,540 million transistors into a die size of 294 mm². This yields a transistor density of 12.0M / mm². The 710M is also on 28 nm at TSMC, but it contains only 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die, giving a density of 5.0M / mm². The 860M has more than six times the transistor count, which alone hints at its compute advantage.

Shader resources differ dramatically. The GTX 860M features 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The 710M has just 96 shaders, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 12x difference in shading units, a 6x difference in TMUs, and a 2x difference in ROPs. The pixel rate tells the story: the 860M achieves 21.96 GPixel/s, while the 710M manages 3.100 GPixel/s. Texture rate is similarly lopsided at 87.84 GTexel/s versus 12.40 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance (FP32) is 2.108 TFLOPS for the 860M versus 297.6 GFLOPS for the 710M, a factor of roughly seven.

Clock behavior also differs. The GTX 860M has a base clock of 797 MHz and a boost clock of 915 MHz. The 710M lists no base or boost clocks in the database, which is notable for a part that relies on sustained frequency for performance. Memory clock is 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the 860M, versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the 710M.

Architecturally, Kepler introduced features that Fermi 2.0 lacked, including better geometry processing and more efficient power scaling. The 860M’s support for Vulkan 1.2.175 is absent from the 710M’s specification, which lists no Vulkan version. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the underlying hardware generations are a full step apart.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 860M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s. The 710M has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of just 14.40 GB/s. That is a 5.5x difference in memory bandwidth, which heavily impacts texture-heavy and high-resolution workloads.

The GTX 860M’s TDP is listed at 75 W, while the 710M draws a mere 15 W. This fivefold power difference reflects the 860M’s much larger silicon and higher performance ceiling. The 860M is designated as an integrated graphics package (slot width "IGP") with no power connectors, while the 710M’s slot width is not specified, though it also uses no power connectors. Both are portable-device dependent for display outputs.

Bus interface differs: the 860M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the 710M uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The older PCIe 2.0 standard halves the per-lane bandwidth, which can bottleneck data transfers in some scenarios, though for a low-end part like the 710M, this is rarely the limiting factor.

Release timing shows the 710M came first, with a release date of 2013-01-08, while the 860M followed on 2014-03-09. The 710M’s predecessor is the GeForce 600M, and its successor is the GeForce 800M, which is exactly the generation the 860M belongs to. The 860M’s predecessor is the GeForce 700M, and its successor is the GeForce 900M. Both are end-of-life products, but they hail from consecutive mobile GPU generations.

The transistor density difference (12.0M vs 5.0M per mm²) is striking given both are on 28nm. This reflects architectural efficiency gains in Kepler, which packed more logic into the same process node. The 860M’s FP32 output of 2.108 TFLOPS is more than seven times the 710M’s 297.6 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate of 21.96 GPixel/s is over seven times the 710M’s 3.100 GPixel/s.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M is the superior GPU by every measurable metric in this comparison. Its OpenCL score of 10,461 dwarfs the 710M’s 2,433, and its average benchmark score of 2,967 is 22% higher. For any user facing a choice between these two in a laptop, the 860M is the only rational pick for compute, gaming, or content creation.

The 710M, on the other hand, is not without a niche. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for ultra-portable designs where battery life and thermals take priority over performance. Its average score of 2,433 places it alongside modern integrated graphics like the Intel HD Graphics 610 (2,425), meaning it can handle basic desktop tasks, light media playback, and very old or low-detail games. But it cannot meaningfully accelerate modern workloads, and its lack of Vulkan support further limits its software compatibility.

The GTX 860M’s position in the 19th percentile of all GPUs is low in absolute terms, but its nearest rivals include the GTX 750 Ti (2,953, within 0.5%) and the Quadro P600 (2,923, within 1.5%). That places it in the same league as entry-level discrete desktop GPUs from its era, which is respectable for a mobile part. The 710M’s 16th percentile ranking and its rival list of iGPUs and low-end discrete chips confirm its status as a budget solution.

In short: pick the GTX 860M if you need real GPU compute, playable frame rates in older titles, or any form of accelerated productivity. Pick the 710M only if power consumption is the absolute priority and you accept integrated-graphics-level performance. The benchmark data offers no scenario where the 710M wins a head-to-head test, and the architectural gap, Kepler with 1,152 shaders versus Fermi 2.0 with 96, ensures that gap persists across all future workloads.