GeForce 410M vs GT 520MX

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 520MX and GeForce 410M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 520MX
2011
1 GB DDR3, 20 Watt
0.64
+8.5%

GT 520MX outperforms 410M by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11791195
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.533.89
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGF119GF119
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date30 May 2011 (13 years ago)5 January 2011 (14 years ago)

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 cores4848
Core clock speed900 MHz575 MHz
Number of transistors292 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt12 Watt
Texture fill rate7.2004.600
Floating-point processing power0.1728 TFLOPS0.1104 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data73
ROPs44
TMUs88

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).

Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16

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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GBUp to 512 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHzUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s12.8 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 ConnectorsNo outputsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
Power managementno data8.0

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.5+
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA++

Synthetic benchmark performance

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 520MX 0.64
+8.5%
GeForce 410M 0.59

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 520MX 284
+7.6%
GeForce 410M 264

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.

GT 520MX 597
+43.7%
GeForce 410M 415

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.

GT 520MX 2620
+36.3%
GeForce 410M 1923

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.

GT 520MX 1489
+48.5%
GeForce 410M 1003

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:

Full HD8−9
+0%
8
+0%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 20−22
+5.3%
18−20
−5.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how GT 520MX and GeForce 410M compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 1080p

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 520MX is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 520MX is ahead in 3 tests (9%)
  • there's a draw in 32 tests (91%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.64 0.59
Recency 30 May 2011 5 January 2011
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 12 Watt

GT 520MX has a 8.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 4 months.

GeForce 410M, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 520MX and GeForce 410M.

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 520MX
GeForce GT 520MX
NVIDIA GeForce 410M
GeForce 410M

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.


3.3 234 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 280 votes

Rate GeForce 410M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 520MX or GeForce 410M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.