Quadro P520 vs GeForce FX 5700

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce FX 5700 with Quadro P520, including specs and performance data.

FX 5700
2003
128 MB DDR, 25 Watt
0.10

P520 outperforms FX 5700 by a whopping 4750% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1533693
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.3120.84
ArchitectureRankine (2003−2005)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameNV36GP108
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date23 October 2003 (22 years ago)23 May 2019 (7 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA coresno data384
Core clock speed425 MHz1303 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1493 MHz
Number of transistors82 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate1.70035.83
Floating-point processing powerno data1.147 TFLOPS
ROPs416
TMUs424
L1 Cacheno data144 KB
L2 Cacheno data512 KB

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfaceAGP 8xPCIe 3.0 x16
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeDDRGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount128 MB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed250 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth16 GB/s48.06 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX9.0a12 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGL1.5 (2.1)4.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-6.1

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

FX 5700 0.10
Quadro P520 4.85
+4750%

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.

FX 5700 40
Samples: 24
Quadro P520 2021
+4953%
Samples: 588

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-0−121
4K-0−120

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Palworld 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 20
+0%
20
+0%
Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Palworld 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 60
+0%
60
+0%
Far Cry 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 6
+0%
6
+0%
Palworld 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+0%
19
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 54
+0%
54
+0%
Far Cry 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+0%
11
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Palworld 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Palworld 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Palworld 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 23
+0%
23
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Palworld 0−1 0−1

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.10 4.85
Recency 23 October 2003 23 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 128 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 130 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 18 Watt

Quadro P520 has a 4750% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 829% more advanced lithography process, and 39% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P520 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5700 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce FX 5700 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro P520 is a mobile workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.8 77 votes

Rate GeForce FX 5700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 115 votes

Rate Quadro P520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce FX 5700 or Quadro P520, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.