Quadro RTX 8000 vs GeForce GT 520

#ad
Buy
VS
#ad
Buy

Combined performance score

GT 520
0.79

Quadro RTX 8000 outperforms GeForce GT 520 by 6200% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking110153
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money0.019.49
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code nameGF119TU102
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date13 April 2011 (12 years old)13 August 2018 (5 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$59 $9,999
Current price$88 (1.5x MSRP)$3230 (0.3x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 8000 has 94800% better value for money than GT 520.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores484608
CUDA cores48no data
Core clock speed810 MHz1395 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1770 MHz
Number of transistors292 million18,600 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)29 Watt260 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature102 °Cno data
Texture fill rate6.5 billion/sec509.8
Floating-point performance155.52 gflopsno data

Size and 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 support16x PCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length5.7" (14.5 cm)267 mm
Height2.7" (6.9 cm)no data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

Memory

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB (DDR3)48 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz (DDR3)14000 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s672.0 GB/s

Video outputs and ports

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsDual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional)4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+no data
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.24.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA+7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 520 0.79
RTX 8000 49.77
+6200%

Quadro RTX 8000 outperforms GeForce GT 520 by 6200% in our combined benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GT 520 308
RTX 8000 19286
+6162%

Quadro RTX 8000 outperforms GeForce GT 520 by 6162% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

GT 520 1269
RTX 8000 136245
+10636%

Quadro RTX 8000 outperforms GeForce GT 520 by 10636% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

Gaming performance

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

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 0.79 49.77
Recency 13 April 2011 13 August 2018
Cost $59 $9999
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB (DDR3) 48 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 29 Watt 260 Watt

The Quadro RTX 8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 520 is a desktop card while Quadro RTX 8000 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

User ratings

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


NVIDIA GeForce GT 520
GeForce GT 520
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000
Quadro RTX 8000

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

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


3.1 659 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 438 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.