Iris Xe Graphics MAX vs GeForce GT 520M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 520M with Iris Xe Graphics MAX, including specs and performance data.
Graphics MAX outperforms 520M by a whopping 525% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1254 | 730 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.45 | 13.34 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Generation 12.1 (2020−2021) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | DG1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 January 2011 (15 years ago) | 31 October 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $59.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 48 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.800 | 79.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1152 TFLOPS | 2.534 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 24 |
| TMUs | 8 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | DDR3 | LPDDR4X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 4.3 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 68.26 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no 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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 7
−471%
| 40−45
+471%
|
| Full HD | 12
−483%
| 70−75
+483%
|
| 1200p | 7
−471%
| 40−45
+471%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−513%
|
190−200
+513%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
−500%
|
120−130
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−483%
|
70−75
+483%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−513%
|
190−200
+513%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−483%
|
70−75
+483%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−513%
|
190−200
+513%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−500%
|
90−95
+500%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
This is how GT 520M and Iris Xe Graphics MAX compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics MAX is 471% faster in 900p
- Iris Xe Graphics MAX is 483% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe Graphics MAX is 471% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.69 | 4.31 |
| Recency | 5 January 2011 | 31 October 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 25 Watt |
GT 520M has 108% lower power consumption.
Iris Xe Graphics MAX, on the other hand, has a 525% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Xe Graphics MAX is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 520M is a notebook graphics card while Iris Xe Graphics MAX 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.
