Arc B390 vs GeForce GT 520

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 520 with Arc B390, including specs and performance data.

GT 520
2011, $59
1 GB (DDR3) DDR3, 29 Watt
0.78

B390 outperforms GT 520 by a whopping 2651% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1225300
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency2.0820.75
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Xe3-LPG (2026)
GPU code nameGF119Panther Lake
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date13 April 2011 (15 years ago)27 January 2026 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$59 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores481536
Core clock speed810 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2500 MHz
Number of transistors292 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm3 nm
Power consumption (TDP)29 Watt80 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature102 °Cno data
Texture fill rate6.480120.0
Floating-point processing power0.1555 TFLOPS7.68 TFLOPS
ROPs424
TMUs848
Ray Tracing Coresno data12
L1 Cache64 KB768 KB
L2 Cache128 KB16 MB

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 support16x PCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16IGP
Length145 mmno data
Height2.7" (6.9 cm)no data
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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GB (DDR3)System Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed900 MHz (DDR3)System Shared
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional)Portable Device Dependent
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.9
OpenGL4.24.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.4
CUDA+-

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.

GT 520 0.78
Arc B390 21.46
+2651%

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.

GT 520 326
Samples: 2289
Arc B390 8940
+2642%
Samples: 395

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GT 520 380
Arc B390 16885
+4343%

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 HD2−3
−2750%
57
+2750%
1440p1−2
−3500%
36
+3500%
4K0−124

Cost per frame, $

1080p29.50no data
1440p59.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Palworld 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 87
+0%
87
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Palworld 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27
+0%
27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 79
+0%
79
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 73
+0%
73
+0%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Palworld 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 107
+0%
107
+0%
Valorant 149
+0%
149
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 73
+0%
73
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47
+0%
47
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Palworld 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 41
+0%
41
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 31
+0%
31
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 96
+0%
96
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Palworld 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 45
+0%
45
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Palworld 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

This is how GT 520 and Arc B390 compete in popular games:

  • Arc B390 is 2750% faster in 1080p
  • Arc B390 is 3500% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.78 21.46
Recency 13 April 2011 27 January 2026
Chip lithography 40 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 29 Watt 80 Watt

GT 520 has 176% lower power consumption.

Arc B390, on the other hand, has a 2651% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, and a 1233% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc B390 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 520 is a desktop graphics card while Arc B390 is a notebook 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.


3 866 votes

Rate GeForce GT 520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 25 votes

Rate Arc B390 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 520 or Arc B390, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.