Radeon 840M vs Pro V520
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro V520 with Radeon 840M, including specs and performance data.
Pro V520 outperforms 840M by a whopping 233% 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 | 222 | 547 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 10.12 | 45.54 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | RDNA 3.5 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | Navi 12 | Krackan Point |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 December 2020 (5 years ago) | March 2025 (1 year 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 cores | 2304 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1600 MHz | 2900 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 230.4 | 46.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.373 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 144 | 16 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 4 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 1024 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 size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | HBM2 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.4 |
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:
| Full HD | 70−75
+218%
| 22
−218%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how Pro V520 and Radeon 840M compete in popular games:
- Pro V520 is 218% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 29.42 | 8.83 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 15 Watt |
Pro V520 has a 233% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 840M, on the other hand, has a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 1400% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro V520 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 840M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro V520 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon 840M 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.
