Radeon RX 560X vs GeForce GT 520MX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 520MX with Radeon RX 560X, including specs and performance data.
560X outperforms 520MX by a whopping 1083% 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 | 1231 | 554 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.65 | 8.36 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF119 | Polaris 21 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 30 May 2011 (14 years ago) | 11 April 2018 (7 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 cores | 48 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 1175 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1275 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.200 | 81.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1728 TFLOPS | 2.611 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 8 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 1024 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 |
| Length | no data | 170 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 112.0 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| 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.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| 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.
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.
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
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1025%
|
90−95
+1025%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−934%
|
300−310
+934%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
−1050%
|
230−240
+1050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−1067%
|
140−150
+1067%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1025%
|
90−95
+1025%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1067%
|
70−75
+1067%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−934%
|
300−310
+934%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−1067%
|
140−150
+1067%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1025%
|
90−95
+1025%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1067%
|
70−75
+1067%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−934%
|
300−310
+934%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1067%
|
35−40
+1067%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1043%
|
80−85
+1043%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1043%
|
160−170
+1043%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−1067%
|
35−40
+1067%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.69 | 8.16 |
| Recency | 30 May 2011 | 11 April 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 75 Watt |
GT 520MX has 275% lower power consumption.
RX 560X, on the other hand, has a 1082.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 560X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520MX in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 520MX is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX 560X is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
