Quadro FX 4000 vs GeForce GT 520MX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 520MX with Quadro FX 4000, including specs and performance data.
GT 520MX outperforms FX 4000 by a whopping 185% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 1171 | 1365 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Power efficiency | 2.54 | 0.13 |
Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Curie (2003−2013) |
GPU code name | GF119 | NV40 |
Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
Release date | 30 May 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 April 2004 (20 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | no data |
Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 375 MHz |
Number of transistors | 292 million | 222 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 130 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 142 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 7.200 | 4.500 |
Floating-point processing power | 0.1728 TFLOPS | no data |
ROPs | 4 | 8 |
TMUs | 8 | 12 |
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 | AGP 8x |
Width | no data | 2-slot |
Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x Molex |
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 | GDDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 500 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 32 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 Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 API | 9.0c (9_3) |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
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.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
- Passmark
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.
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
Atomic Heart | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Atomic Heart | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
Valorant | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
Atomic Heart | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Dota 2 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Valorant | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Dota 2 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Valorant | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
Valorant | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 0.74 | 0.26 |
Recency | 30 May 2011 | 1 April 2004 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
Chip lithography | 40 nm | 130 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 142 Watt |
GT 520MX has a 184.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 225% more advanced lithography process, and 610% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 520MX is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 520MX is a notebook card while Quadro FX 4000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.