GeForce RTX 3090 vs GT 520M

Place in performance ranking	1127	19
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	16.94
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Ampere (2020−2022)
GPU code name	N12P-GP/LV	Ampere GA102
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	5 January 2011 (13 years ago)	24 September 2020 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$59.99	$1,499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 3090 has 169300% better value for money than GT 520M.

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	10496
Core clock speed	740 / 600 MHz	1400 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1700 MHz
Number of transistors	585 million	28,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	350 Watt
Texture fill rate	5.376	556.0
Floating-point performance	129.02 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GT 520M and GeForce RTX 3090 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	313 mm
Width	no data	3-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 12-pin

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 (GDDR5)	GDDR6X
Maximum RAM amount	1536 MB	24 GB
Memory bus width	64 / 128 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 / 900 MHz	19500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	936.2 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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	No outputs	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI	no data	+

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2
CUDA	+	8.5

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 520M 0.73

RTX 3090 69.35
+9400%

RTX 3090 outperforms GT 520M by 9400% based on our aggregate 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 520M 281

RTX 3090 26768
+9426%

RTX 3090 outperforms GT 520M by 9426% in Passmark.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GT 520M 2280

RTX 3090 124350
+5354%

RTX 3090 outperforms GT 520M by 5354% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GT 520M 502

RTX 3090 61518
+12155%

RTX 3090 outperforms GT 520M by 12155% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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 520M 1215

RTX 3090 189161
+15469%

RTX 3090 outperforms GT 520M by 15469% 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.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p	7 −9186%	650−700 +9186%
Full HD	12 −1525%	195 +1525%
1200p	7 −9186%	650−700 +9186%
1440p	1−2 −13200%	133 +13200%
4K	0−1	89

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−6800%

207
+6800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −3080%	159 +3080%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −3867%	110−120 +3867%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −5767%	176 +5767%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −16800%	160−170 +16800%
Hitman 3	5−6 −2240%	117 +2240%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −2200%	250−260 +2200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	130
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −4767%	290−300 +4767%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −545%	200 +545%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −4840%	247 +4840%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −3867%	110−120 +3867%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −4933%	151 +4933%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −16800%	160−170 +16800%
Hitman 3	5−6 −2240%	117 +2240%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −2200%	250−260 +2200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	120−130
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −6600%	402 +6600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −1390%	140−150 +1390%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −542%	199 +542%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −2060%	108 +2060%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −3867%	110−120 +3867%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −4367%	134 +4367%
Hitman 3	5−6 −2220%	116 +2220%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −2582%	295 +2582%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −5750%	351 +5750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −1710%	181 +1710%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −245%	107 +245%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

129

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	160−170
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −10900%	110−120 +10900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	93
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −9200%	93 +9200%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −8000%	80−85 +8000%
Hitman 3	6−7 −1817%	115 +1817%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −7667%	233 +7667%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 −10050%	203 +10050%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−4133%

127
+4133%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

65−70

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −6900%	70 +6900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	57

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−5450%

111
+5450%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	114 +0%	114 +0%
Battlefield 5	220−230 +0%	220−230 +0%
Far Cry 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	230−240 +0%	230−240 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	105 +0%	105 +0%
Battlefield 5	220−230 +0%	220−230 +0%
Far Cry 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	230−240 +0%	230−240 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	91 +0%	91 +0%
Far Cry 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	217 +0%	217 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	79 +0%	79 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	270−280 +0%	270−280 +0%
Metro Exodus	139 +0%	139 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	266 +0%	266 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	152 +0%	152 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Hitman 3	83 +0%	83 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	220−230 +0%	220−230 +0%
Metro Exodus	141 +0%	141 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	153 +0%	153 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	46 +0%	46 +0%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	153 +0%	153 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	159 +0%	159 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60 +0%	60 +0%

This is how GT 520M and RTX 3090 compete in popular games:

RTX 3090 is 9186% faster in 900p
RTX 3090 is 1525% faster in 1080p
RTX 3090 is 9186% faster in 1200p
RTX 3090 is 13200% faster in 1440p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 3090 is 16800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RTX 3090 is ahead in 35 tests (54%)
there's a draw in 30 tests (46%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.73	69.35
Recency	5 January 2011	24 September 2020
Maximum RAM amount	1536 MB	24 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	350 Watt

GT 520M has 2816.7% lower power consumption.

RTX 3090, on the other hand, has a 9400% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3090 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 520M is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 3090 is a desktop one.

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.

GeForce GT 520M

GeForce RTX 3090

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Error: Запрос select b.card_id from ss_benchmarks_results as b left join ss_cards as i on i._id=b.card_id and i._disabled=0 and i.redirect_to=0 left join ss_cards_custom as custom on custom.filename=i.filename and custom._disabled=0 left join ss_stat_exist as pop on pop.item_type="video" and pop.item1=i._id and pop.item2=266 and pop.lang="2" left join ss_stat_exist as pop2 on pop2.item_type="video" and pop2.item1=266 and pop2.item2=i._id and pop2.lang="2" where b.benchmark_id=-1 and i.type="notebook" and i.prof="0" and i._disabled=0 and ( if(pop.visits,pop.visits,pop2.visits)>=1 OR ( to_days(now()) - to_days(replace("2011-01-05","-00","-01"))<=366/2 OR to_days(now()) - to_days(replace(if(custom.date_of_announcement AND custom.date_of_announcement!="0000-01-00",custom.date_of_announcement,i.date_of_announcement),"-00","-01"))<=366/2 ) ) having !isnull(i._id) order by abs(0.73 - b.result) asc /* # 1 */ limit 6 вызвал ошибку Unknown column 'i._id' in 'having clause'

Error: Запрос select b.card_id from ss_benchmarks_results as b left join ss_cards as i on i._id=b.card_id and i._disabled=0 and i.redirect_to=0 left join ss_cards_custom as custom on custom.filename=i.filename and custom._disabled=0 left join ss_stat_exist as pop on pop.item_type="video" and pop.item1=i._id and pop.item2=4572 and pop.lang="2" left join ss_stat_exist as pop2 on pop2.item_type="video" and pop2.item1=4572 and pop2.item2=i._id and pop2.lang="2" where b.benchmark_id=-1 and i.type="notebook" and i.prof="0" and i._disabled=0 and ( if(pop.visits,pop.visits,pop2.visits)>=1 OR ( to_days(now()) - to_days(replace("2020-09-24","-00","-01"))<=366/2 OR to_days(now()) - to_days(replace(if(custom.date_of_announcement AND custom.date_of_announcement!="0000-01-00",custom.date_of_announcement,i.date_of_announcement),"-00","-01"))<=366/2 ) ) having !isnull(i._id) order by abs(69.35 - b.result) asc /* # 2 */ limit 6 вызвал ошибку Unknown column 'i._id' in 'having clause'