Radeon 625 vs GeForce GT 520M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 520M and Radeon 625, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
625 outperforms 520M by a whopping 278% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1238 | 868 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.36 | 3.96 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | Polaris 24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 January 2011 (15 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (6 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.
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 cores | 48 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 730 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1024 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.800 | 24.58 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1152 TFLOPS | 0.7864 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 8 |
| TMUs | 8 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 128 KB |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
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.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
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
−243%
| 24−27
+243%
|
| Full HD | 12
−275%
| 45−50
+275%
|
| 1200p | 7
−243%
| 24−27
+243%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−160%
|
12−14
+160%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−51.7%
|
40−45
+51.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
−150%
|
50−55
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−117%
|
24−27
+117%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−160%
|
12−14
+160%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−51.7%
|
40−45
+51.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−117%
|
24−27
+117%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−160%
|
12−14
+160%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−51.7%
|
40−45
+51.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how GT 520M and Radeon 625 compete in popular games:
- Radeon 625 is 243% faster in 900p
- Radeon 625 is 275% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 625 is 243% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 625 is 533% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 625 performs better in 29 tests (60%)
- there's a draw in 19 tests (40%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.68 | 2.57 |
| Recency | 5 January 2011 | 13 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 50 Watt |
GT 520M has 317% lower power consumption.
Radeon 625, on the other hand, has a 278% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 625 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.
