GeForce GT 520 vs GT 720M

Place in performance ranking	1017	1103
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.03	0.01
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	N14M-GE	GF119
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	1 April 2013 (11 years ago)	13 April 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$59
Current price	$499	$88 (1.5x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 720M has 200% better value for money than GT 520.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	96	48
CUDA cores	no data	48
Core clock speed	625 MHz	810 MHz
Boost clock speed	938 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	915 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	29 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	102 °C
Texture fill rate	12.13	6.5 billion/sec
Floating-point performance	240.0 gflops	155.52 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GT 720M and GeForce GT 520 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 2.0	16x PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x8	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	5.7" (14.5 cm)
Height	no data	2.7" (6.9 cm)
Width	no data	1-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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB (DDR3)
Standard memory configuration	DDR3	no data
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1800 - 2000 MHz	900 MHz (DDR3)
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	14.4 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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	Dual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional)
Multi monitor support	no data	+
eDP 1.2 signal support	Up to 2560x1600	no data
LVDS signal support	Up to 1920x1200	no data
VGA аnalog display support	Up to 2048x1536	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	Up to 2560x1600	no data
HDMI	+	+
HDCP content protection	+	no data
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI	+	no data
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming	+	no data

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support	+	no data
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.2
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	+	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 720M 1.19
+48.8%

GT 520 0.80

GT 720M outperforms GT 520 by 49% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GT 720M 462
+49%

GT 520 310

GT 720M outperforms GT 520 by 49% in Passmark.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GT 720M 822
+116%

GT 520 380

GT 720M outperforms GT 520 by 116% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

GT 720M 2609
+105%

GT 520 1271

GT 720M outperforms GT 520 by 105% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

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

14
+55.6%

9−10

−55.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4 +100%	2−3 −100%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2	0−1
Metro Exodus	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Hitman 3	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%

This is how GT 720M and GT 520 compete in popular games:

GT 720M is 56% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.19	0.80
Recency	1 April 2013	13 April 2011
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB (DDR3)
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	29 Watt