Radeon R2 Graphics vs GeForce GT 520
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1146 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | GF119 | Beema |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 13 April 2011 (13 years ago) | 27 February 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $59 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
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 cores | 48 | 128 |
| CUDA cores | 48 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 351 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 930 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 29 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 102 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 6.480 | 2.808 |
| Floating-point performance | 0.1555 gflops | 0.08986 gflops |
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 support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | IGP |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Height | 2.7" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | DDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB (DDR3) | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz (DDR3) | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
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 Connectors | Dual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional) | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 13 April 2011 | 27 February 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 29 Watt | 15 Watt |
R2 Graphics has an age advantage of 3 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 93.3% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between GeForce GT 520 and Radeon R2 Graphics. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
