NVS 510 vs GeForce GT 520M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 520M with NVS 510, including specs and performance data.
NVS 510 outperforms 520M by a whopping 135% 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 | 1248 | 1009 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 4.45 | 3.58 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 January 2011 (15 years ago) | 23 October 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $59.99 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
NVS 510 has 300% better value for money than GT 520M.
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 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 797 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.800 | 12.75 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1152 TFLOPS | 0.306 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 8 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 256 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 160 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 28.51 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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
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 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 3.0 |
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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
−129%
| 16−18
+129%
|
| Full HD | 12
−125%
| 27−30
+125%
|
| 1200p | 7
−129%
| 16−18
+129%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.00
+233%
| 16.63
−233%
|
- GT 520M has 233% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−132%
|
65−70
+132%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
−125%
|
45−50
+125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−125%
|
27−30
+125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−132%
|
65−70
+132%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−125%
|
27−30
+125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−132%
|
65−70
+132%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Palworld | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Palworld | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
This is how GT 520M and NVS 510 compete in popular games:
- NVS 510 is 129% faster in 900p
- NVS 510 is 125% faster in 1080p
- NVS 510 is 129% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.69 | 1.62 |
| Recency | 5 January 2011 | 23 October 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 35 Watt |
GT 520M has 192% lower power consumption.
NVS 510, on the other hand, has a 135% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
The NVS 510 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 NVS 510 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
