Radeon RX 6900 XT vs GeForce GT 520MX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 520MX with Radeon RX 6900 XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 6900 XT outperforms GT 520MX by a whopping 9239% 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 | 28 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 30.00 |
| Power efficiency | 2.55 | 15.88 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GF119 | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 30 May 2011 (13 years ago) | 28 October 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
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 | 5120 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 1825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.200 | 720.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1728 TFLOPS | 23.04 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 128 |
| TMUs | 8 | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
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 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | - | + |
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 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| 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
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.
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.
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 HD | 2−3
−9650%
| 195
+9650%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−13300%
| 134
+13300%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 85 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.12 |
| 1440p | no data | 7.46 |
| 4K | no data | 11.75 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−9850%
|
190−200
+9850%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7950%
|
160−170
+7950%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−9850%
|
190−200
+9850%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7950%
|
160−170
+7950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−5560%
|
283
+5560%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2113%
|
170−180
+2113%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1148%
|
350−400
+1148%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−9850%
|
190−200
+9850%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
−1290%
|
270−280
+1290%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7950%
|
160−170
+7950%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−1200%
|
160−170
+1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−5480%
|
279
+5480%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−16300%
|
164
+16300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2113%
|
170−180
+2113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−7975%
|
323
+7975%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1148%
|
350−400
+1148%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7950%
|
160−170
+7950%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−1200%
|
160−170
+1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−4860%
|
248
+4860%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2113%
|
170−180
+2113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−4000%
|
164
+4000%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1317%
|
411
+1317%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−16300%
|
450−500
+16300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2400%
|
170−180
+2400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 90−95 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−11450%
|
231
+11450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−14900%
|
150−160
+14900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−15000%
|
150−160
+15000%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−940%
|
150−160
+940%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−8175%
|
300−350
+8175%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−10100%
|
100−110
+10100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4700%
|
95−100
+4700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 195
+0%
|
195
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 196
+0%
|
196
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 197
+0%
|
197
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 196
+0%
|
196
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 162
+0%
|
162
+0%
|
This is how GT 520MX and RX 6900 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6900 XT is 9650% faster in 1080p
- RX 6900 XT is 13300% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6900 XT is 16300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6900 XT is ahead in 32 tests (52%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (48%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.64 | 59.77 |
| Recency | 30 May 2011 | 28 October 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 300 Watt |
GT 520MX has 1400% lower power consumption.
RX 6900 XT, on the other hand, has a 9239.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520MX in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 520MX is a notebook card while Radeon RX 6900 XT 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.
