OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

GIGABYTE GeForce GT 710 2GB review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£60VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):19 W

GIGABYTE GeForce GT 710 2GB Review: Compare 117 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

GIGABYTE GeForce GT 710 2GB
5.7/10

Overall score

Score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
Score components

40%

3.8

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.6, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.8

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 92% of graphics cards
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 75%
3.8

Technical score

Technical score
3.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

44%

2.8

Performance

24%

1.4

Memory

12%

7.9

Power

11%

6.0

Features

5%

8.7

Design

4%

5.0

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 95%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.6.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • gigabyte-geforce-gt-710-2gb
gigabyte-geforce-gt-710-2gb
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the GIGABYTE GeForce GT 710 2GB

Based on 212 owners sharing their experience in online comments

69%positive13%mixed18%negative

Owners value its playable game performance, while limited speed makes newer and demanding titles difficult.

What owners dislike

  • Frame rates are too low for modern demanding games and some recent titles, often dropping to 20 to 30 fps or less even at low settings.39
  • Some owners ran into software problems, such as RTX Voice not working on the 1x slot version, shadow artifacts, and DirectX 11 support limits.4
  • The DDR3 version is only slightly faster than Intel integrated graphics like the HD 4600 or UHD 630, and the DDR5 version is about equal to them.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card GIGABYTE GeForce GT 710 2GB

Technical score
Technical score
3.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components:

44%

2.8

Performance

24%

1.4

Memory

12%

7.9

Power

11%

6.0

Features

5%

8.7

Design

4%

5.0

Connectivity

3.8
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components:

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.0
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
?
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >25k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
619 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 619 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 99.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
360 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 360 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 99.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
0.37 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 0.37 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 98.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >24 GB
This graphics card has 2 GB of VRAM, which is less than 94.3% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
64 bit
Market range: <64 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 64 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 96.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.3% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
12.8 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 12.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 99.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
1,600 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 1,600 MHz, which is slower than that of 99% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
2
This graphics card supports PCIe 2, which is older than on 98.4% of graphics cards and equal to 1.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 94.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
3
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 3 displays, which is fewer than 91% of graphics cards and equal to 6.6% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
0
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 0 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 96.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
?
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
19 W
Market range: <60 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 19 W, which is lower than that of 99.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
19 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card draws 19 W under peak load, which is lower than 100% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
300 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 300 W PSU, which is lower than that of 94% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
19 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 19 W, which is lower than that of 99.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
?
Show more
Size
?
Length
145 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >350 mm
This graphics card is 145 mm long, which is shorter than 98.7% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.1% of graphics cards.
Height
69 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 69 mm tall, which is shorter than 92.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.6% of graphics cards.
Slot width
?
Weight
200 g
Market range: <500 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 200 g, which is lighter than 98.7% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of Graphics cards.
Show more

GIGABYTE GeForce GT 710 2GB vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 91.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (19 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    19 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 137.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (145 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    145 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 56 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (69 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    69 mm vs 125 mm
  • 91.4% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (19 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    19 W vs 220 W
  • 8.67x cheaper
    GIGABYTE GeForce GT 710 2GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£60 vs £520).
    £60 vs £520
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 91.4% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (19 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    19 W vs 220 W
  • 8.67x cheaper
    GIGABYTE GeForce GT 710 2GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£60 vs £520).
    £60 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:24 vs 1:64).
    1:24 vs 1:64
  • 70.4% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (87 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    87 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 91.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (19 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    19 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 91.4% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (19 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    19 W vs 220 W
  • 91.4% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (19 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    19 W vs 220 W
  • 137.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (145 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    145 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 56 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (69 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    69 mm vs 125 mm
  • 80.3% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (200 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    200 g vs 1,014 g
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 39 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (1 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    1 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • Less advanced frame generation
    GIGABYTE GeForce GT 710 2GB has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 50.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (954 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    954 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 168 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (16 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    16 vs 184
  • 51.3% lower sentiment score
    3.8 vs 7.8
  • 6.4% worse value for money
    GIGABYTE GeForce GT 710 2GB has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.97 vs 7.4).
    6.97 vs 7.41
  • 39 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (1 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    1 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 50.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (954 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    954 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 168 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (16 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    16 vs 184
  • 96% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (15.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    15.26 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 97.6% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (3.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    3.82 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 56 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (8 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    8 vs 64
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 98.4% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (0.4 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    0.37 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 7 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2016 vs 2023).
    2,016 vs 2,023
  • 97.3% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (619 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    619 points vs 22,638 points
  • 97% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (360 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    360 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 95.8% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.02 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 4,160 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (192 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    192 vs 4,352
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 97.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (12.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    12.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 91.6% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (1,600 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    1,600 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    64 bit vs 192 bit
  • 8.6% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,600 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,600 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    GIGABYTE GeForce GT 710 2GB has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (2 vs 4).
    2.0 vs 4.0
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.5 vs 6.8).
    6.5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 95.5% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (1,020 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    1,020 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1a).
    1.4a vs 2.1a
  • 3 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (0 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    0 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (3 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    3 vs 4
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (1 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    1 vs 6
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about GIGABYTE GeForce GT 710 2GB

  • 19 W power draw means it needs very little from the rest of the PC.
  • At 145 mm long, it fits in almost any case.
  • It weighs only 200 g, so it puts little load on the slot.
  • A 300 W power supply is enough to run it.
  • Up to 3 displays can run from this one card.
  • CUDA support lets some software use the card.

What customers don't like about GIGABYTE GeForce GT 710 2GB

  • 2 GB of memory is too small for modern games.
  • No ray tracing, so lighting effects stay off.
  • 0.37 TFLOPS of FP32 power limits it to light, basic work.
  • No DisplayPort outputs, so newer monitors may need an adapter.
  • PCIe 2.0 is an older standard that slows data moves to the card.

Verdict

At 19 W, the GIGABYTE GeForce GT 710 2GB is made for an old office PC or a media box that needs a screen and little else. It is short and light, at 145 mm long and 200 g, so it fits almost any case and needs only a 300 W power supply. The card has one DVI output and no DisplayPort, but it drives up to 3 displays, which suits a desk with several monitors. Games are where it falls short. Its 2 GB of memory, 0.37 TFLOPS and lack of ray tracing leave little room for anything modern. It handles desktop work, web pages and basic video without fuss. Its CUDA and FSR support are small bonuses. It is a budget upgrade for a basic PC, not a gaming card.

Compare GIGABYTE GeForce GT 710 2GB with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of GIGABYTE GeForce GT 710 2GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found