Quadro M520 vs Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Vega Frontier Edition with Quadro M520, including specs and performance data.
Frontier Edition outperforms M520 by a whopping 571% 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 | 212 | 715 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.97 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.84 | 14.02 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | GM108 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 27 June 2017 (9 years ago) | 11 January 2017 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | 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 | 4096 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1382 MHz | 1041 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1600 MHz | 1019 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 409.6 | 16.66 |
| Floating-point processing power | 13.11 TFLOPS | 0.7995 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 256 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 128 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 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 945 MHz | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 483.8 GB/s | 40 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
| 3D Stereo | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 5.0 |
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:
| Full HD | 130−140
+550%
| 20
−550%
|
| 4K | 80−85
+567%
| 12
−567%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.68 | no data |
| 4K | 12.49 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how Vega Frontier Edition and Quadro M520 compete in popular games:
- Vega Frontier Edition is 550% faster in 1080p
- Vega Frontier Edition is 567% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.38 | 4.53 |
| Recency | 27 June 2017 | 11 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 25 Watt |
Vega Frontier Edition has a 571% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 months, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro M520, on the other hand, has 1100% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M520 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is a workstation graphics card while Quadro M520 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
