Riva 128 vs GeForce GT 520

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1142not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency1.95no data
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)no data
GPU code nameGF119NV3
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date13 April 2011 (13 years ago)1 April 1997 (27 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$59 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores48no data
Core clock speed810 MHz100 MHz
Number of transistors292 million4 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm350 nm
Power consumption (TDP)29 Watt4 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature102 °Cno data
Texture fill rate6.4800.1
Floating-point processing power0.1555 TFLOPSno data
ROPs41
TMUs81

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 support16x PCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16AGP 2x
Length145 mmno data
Height2.7" (6.9 cm)no data
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeDDR3SDR
Maximum RAM amount1 GB (DDR3)4 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz (DDR3)100 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s1.6 GB/s

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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional)1x VGA, 1x DB13W3
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)5.0
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.21.0
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 13 April 2011 1 April 1997
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB (DDR3) 4 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 350 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 29 Watt 4 Watt

GT 520 has an age advantage of 14 years, a 25500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 775% more advanced lithography process.

Riva 128, on the other hand, has 625% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GT 520 and Riva 128. 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.

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 GeForce GT 520
GeForce GT 520
NVIDIA Riva 128
Riva 128

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.1 756 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 39 votes

Rate Riva 128 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

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