Radeon RX 6400 vs GeForce GT 520M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 520M with Radeon RX 6400, including specs and performance data.

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

RX 6400 outperforms 520M by a whopping 2624% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1235330
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0143.55
Power efficiency4.3626.88
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameGF108Navi 24
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date5 January 2011 (15 years ago)19 January 2022 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$59.99 $159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RX 6400 has 435400% better value for money than GT 520M.

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 cores48768
Core clock speed600 MHz1923 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2321 MHz
Number of transistors585 million5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt53 Watt
Texture fill rate4.800111.4
Floating-point processing power0.1152 TFLOPS3.565 TFLOPS
ROPs432
TMUs848
Ray Tracing Coresno data12
L0 Cacheno data192 KB
L1 Cache64 KB256 KB
L2 Cache128 KB1024 KB
L3 Cacheno data16 MB

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 x16PCIe 4.0 x4
Widthno data1-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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/s128.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 Dependent1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

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 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.7
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
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.

GT 520M 0.68
RX 6400 18.52
+2624%

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.

GT 520M 285
Samples: 1063
RX 6400 7745
+2618%
Samples: 1911

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
−2614%
190−200
+2614%
Full HD12
−2400%
300−350
+2400%
1200p7
−2614%
190−200
+2614%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.00
−843%
0.53
+843%
  • RX 6400 has 843% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2400%
50−55
+2400%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−2500%
130−140
+2500%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2400%
50−55
+2400%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−2500%
130−140
+2500%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−2500%
130−140
+2500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−2525%
210−220
+2525%
Valorant 27−30
−2486%
750−800
+2486%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 20−22
−2400%
500−550
+2400%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2400%
50−55
+2400%
Dota 2 12−14
−2400%
300−310
+2400%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−2500%
130−140
+2500%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−2500%
130−140
+2500%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−2525%
210−220
+2525%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−2567%
160−170
+2567%
Valorant 27−30
−2486%
750−800
+2486%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2400%
50−55
+2400%
Dota 2 12−14
−2400%
300−310
+2400%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−2500%
130−140
+2500%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−2500%
130−140
+2500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−2525%
210−220
+2525%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−2567%
160−170
+2567%
Valorant 27−30
−2486%
750−800
+2486%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−2614%
190−200
+2614%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−2400%
50−55
+2400%
Hogwarts Legacy 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−2400%
50−55
+2400%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−2400%
350−400
+2400%
Valorant 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−2400%
50−55
+2400%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−2400%
50−55
+2400%

This is how GT 520M and RX 6400 compete in popular games:

  • RX 6400 is 2614% faster in 900p
  • RX 6400 is 2400% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6400 is 2614% faster in 1200p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.68 18.52
Recency 5 January 2011 19 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 53 Watt

GT 520M has 341.7% lower power consumption.

RX 6400, on the other hand, has a 2623.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6400 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 520M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX 6400 is a desktop one.

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 520M
GeForce GT 520M
AMD Radeon RX 6400
Radeon RX 6400

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.


3 468 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 2438 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6400 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 Radeon RX 6400, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.