ATI Radeon Xpress 1250 vs GeForce GT 520M
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1156 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.26 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | R400 (2004−2008) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | RS690 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 28 February 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $59.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 4 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 120 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 4.800 | 1.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1152 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 4 |
| TMUs | 8 | 4 |
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 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 9.0b (9_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 5 January 2011 | 28 February 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 80 nm |
GT 520M has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between GeForce GT 520M and Radeon Xpress 1250. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that GeForce GT 520M is a notebook card while Radeon Xpress 1250 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
