GeForce GT 520MX vs GTX 1660 Ti Mobile

Place in the ranking	197	1168
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	100.00	no data
Power efficiency	24.91	2.52
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	TU116	GF119
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)	30 May 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$229	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1536	48
Core clock speed	1455 MHz	900 MHz
Boost clock speed	1590 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,600 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	20 Watt
Texture fill rate	152.6	7.200
Floating-point processing power	4.884 TFLOPS	0.1728 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	4
TMUs	96	8

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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 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 type	GDDR6	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288.0 GB/s	14.4 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

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 API
Shader Model	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	7.5	+

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. 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.

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile 28.91
+3860%

GT 520MX 0.73

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.

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile 20119
+3273%

GT 520MX 597

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.

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile 49309
+1782%

GT 520MX 2620

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	89 +4350%	2−3 −4350%
1440p	57 +5600%	1−2 −5600%
4K	36	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.57	no data
1440p	4.02	no data
4K	6.36	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	63 +800%	7−8 −800%
Cyberpunk 2077	86 +2767%	3−4 −2767%
Elden Ring	95−100	0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	89 +4350%	2−3 −4350%
Counter-Strike 2	57 +714%	7−8 −714%
Cyberpunk 2077	63 +2000%	3−4 −2000%
Forza Horizon 4	147 +2000%	7−8 −2000%
Metro Exodus	88 +4300%	2−3 −4300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	99 +1880%	5−6 −1880%
Valorant	148 +4833%	3−4 −4833%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	112 +5500%	2−3 −5500%
Counter-Strike 2	49 +600%	7−8 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	50 +1567%	3−4 −1567%
Dota 2	111 +5450%	2−3 −5450%
Elden Ring	102	0−1
Far Cry 5	75 +838%	8−9 −838%
Fortnite	130−140 +13800%	1−2 −13800%
Forza Horizon 4	118 +1586%	7−8 −1586%
Grand Theft Auto V	105 +5150%	2−3 −5150%
Metro Exodus	63 +6200%	1−2 −6200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	232 +2220%	10−11 −2220%
Red Dead Redemption 2	41 +720%	5−6 −720%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	95−100 +1500%	6−7 −1500%
Valorant	71 +7000%	1−2 −7000%
World of Tanks	270−280 +1326%	18−20 −1326%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	78 +7700%	1−2 −7700%
Counter-Strike 2	42 +500%	7−8 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	45 +1400%	3−4 −1400%
Dota 2	116 +5700%	2−3 −5700%
Far Cry 5	119 +1388%	8−9 −1388%
Forza Horizon 4	101 +1343%	7−8 −1343%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +1620%	10−11 −1620%
Valorant	125 +4067%	3−4 −4067%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	50−55 +4900%	1−2 −4900%
Elden Ring	54 +5300%	1−2 −5300%
Grand Theft Auto V	50−55 +5000%	1−2 −5000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +4275%	4−5 −4275%
Red Dead Redemption 2	26	0−1
World of Tanks	180−190 +6167%	3−4 −6167%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55 +5400%	1−2 −5400%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	25 +733%	3−4 −733%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +2100%	4−5 −2100%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +7800%	1−2 −7800%
Metro Exodus	60 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +1025%	4−5 −1025%
Valorant	81 +1520%	5−6 −1520%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30	0−1
Dota 2	50−55 +247%	14−16 −247%
Elden Ring	26	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	50−55 +247%	14−16 −247%
Metro Exodus	19	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90 +4400%	2−3 −4400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	17	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +247%	14−16 −247%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	10 +400%	2−3 −400%
Dota 2	85 +467%	14−16 −467%
Far Cry 5	35−40	0−1
Fortnite	37	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +4400%	1−2 −4400%
Valorant	39 +3800%	1−2 −3800%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and GT 520MX compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 4350% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 5600% faster in 1440p

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

in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 13800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	28.91	0.73
Recency	23 April 2019	30 May 2011
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	20 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has a 3860.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

GT 520MX, on the other hand, has 300% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520MX in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.