GeForce GT 520 vs Radeon HD 6540G2

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 6540G2 with GeForce GT 520, including specs and performance data.

HD 6540G2
2011
1.18
+51.3%

HD 6540G2 outperforms GT 520 by an impressive 51% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11151225
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiencyno data2.08
ArchitectureTerascale 2 (2009−2015)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameno dataGF119
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date14 June 2011 (15 years ago)13 April 2011 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$59

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 cores48048
Core clock speedno data810 MHz
Number of transistorsno data292 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data29 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data102 °C
Texture fill rateno data6.480
Floating-point processing powerno data0.1555 TFLOPS
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8
L1 Cacheno data64 KB
L2 Cacheno data128 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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportno data16x PCI-E 2.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Heightno data2.7" (6.9 cm)
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB (DDR3)
Memory bus widthno data64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data900 MHz (DDR3)
Memory bandwidthno data14.4 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 Connectorsno dataDual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional)
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

API and SDK support

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

DirectX1112 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.2
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-+

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Palworld 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Fortnite 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Palworld 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Valorant 30−35
+52.4%
21−24
−52.4%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
+55.6%
18−20
−55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Fortnite 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
Palworld 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Valorant 30−35
+52.4%
21−24
−52.4%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Valorant 30−35
+52.4%
21−24
−52.4%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Palworld 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Valorant 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Palworld 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
Valorant 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.18 0.78
Recency 14 June 2011 13 April 2011

HD 6540G2 has a 51% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 months.

The Radeon HD 6540G2 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 6540G2 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GT 520 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.

Community ratings

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


3.7 3 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6540G2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 866 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 6540G2 or GeForce GT 520, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.