GeForce GT 735M vs GRID K520

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GRID K520 with GeForce GT 735M, including specs and performance data.

GRID K520
2013, $3,599
4 GB GDDR5, 225 Watt
8.40
+438%

K520 outperforms 735M by a whopping 438% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking539996
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.15no data
Power efficiency2.873.63
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code nameGK104GK208
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date23 July 2013 (12 years ago)1 April 2013 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,599 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1536 ×2384
Core clock speed745 MHz575 MHz
Boost clock speedno data889 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million915 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)225 Watt33 Watt
Texture fill rate95.36 ×218.40
Floating-point processing power2.289 TFLOPS ×20.4416 TFLOPS
ROPs32 ×28
TMUs128 ×232
L1 Cache128 KB32 KB
L2 Cache512 KB128 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).

Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB ×22 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataDDR3
Memory bus width256 Bit ×264 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/s ×214.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMI-+
HDCP content protection-+
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI-+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Blu-Ray 3D Support-+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+
3D Vision / 3DTV Play-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 API
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.126
CUDA3.0+

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.

GRID K520 8.40
+438%
GT 735M 1.56

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.

GRID K520 3516
+438%
Samples: 20
GT 735M 654
Samples: 155

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:

900p90−95
+429%
17
−429%
Full HD110−120
+424%
21
−424%

Cost per frame, $

1080p32.72no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 32
+0%
32
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
Ultra

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

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how GRID K520 and GT 735M compete in popular games:

  • GRID K520 is 429% faster in 900p
  • GRID K520 is 424% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 52 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.40 1.56
Recency 23 July 2013 1 April 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 33 Watt

GRID K520 has a 438.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GT 735M, on the other hand, has 581.8% lower power consumption.

The GRID K520 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 735M in performance tests.

Be aware that GRID K520 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 735M is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GRID K520
GRID K520
NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M
GeForce GT 735M

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.


2.3 3 votes

Rate GRID K520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 34 votes

Rate GeForce GT 735M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GRID K520 or GeForce GT 735M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.