HD Graphics 400 vs GeForce GT 520M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 520M and HD Graphics 400, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 520M
2011, $60
1 GB DDR3, 12 Watt
0.68

HD Graphics 400 outperforms 520M by an impressive 53% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12381146
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency4.3613.35
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 8.0 (2014−2015)
GPU code nameGF108Braswell GT1
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date5 January 2011 (15 years ago)1 April 2015 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$59.99 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 cores4896
Core clock speed600 MHz320 MHz
Boost clock speedno data600 MHz
Number of transistors585 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt6 Watt
Texture fill rate4.8007.200
Floating-point processing power0.1152 TFLOPS0.1152 TFLOPS
ROPs42
TMUs812
L1 Cache64 KBno data
L2 Cache128 KBno data

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16Ring Bus
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeDDR3DDR3L
Maximum RAM amount1 GB8 GB
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 API12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.3
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A+
CUDA+-

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:

900p7
−42.9%
10−12
+42.9%
Full HD12
−50%
18−20
+50%
1200p7
−42.9%
10−12
+42.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Valorant 27−30
−37.9%
40−45
+37.9%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 20−22
−50%
30−33
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Dota 2 12−14
−50%
18−20
+50%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
Valorant 27−30
−37.9%
40−45
+37.9%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Dota 2 12−14
−50%
18−20
+50%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
Valorant 27−30
−37.9%
40−45
+37.9%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−50%
21−24
+50%
Valorant 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

This is how GT 520M and HD Graphics 400 compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 400 is 43% faster in 900p
  • HD Graphics 400 is 50% faster in 1080p
  • HD Graphics 400 is 43% faster in 1200p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.68 1.04
Recency 5 January 2011 1 April 2015
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 6 Watt

HD Graphics 400 has a 53% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 186% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 400 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.

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.


3 473 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 456 votes

Rate HD Graphics 400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 520M or HD Graphics 400, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.