Radeon 520 vs GeForce GTX 285M

Place in the ranking	945	878
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.53	2.84
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	G92	Banks
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 February 2010 (14 years ago)	18 April 2017 (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	128	320
Core clock speed	600 MHz	1030 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	690 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	38.40	20.60
Floating-point processing power	0.384 TFLOPS	0.6592 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	576	no data
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	64	20

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	large	no data
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x8
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None
SLI options	2-way	-
MXM Type	MXM 3.0 Type-B	no data

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	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 1020 MHz	1125 MHz
Memory bandwidth	61 GB/s	36 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	Single Link DVIVGALVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management

8.0

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_1)
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
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. 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 285M 1.65

Radeon 520 2.04
+23.6%

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.

GTX 285M 636

Radeon 520 787
+23.7%

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 285M 6498
+23.4%

Radeon 520 5266

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:

900p	21 −14.3%	24−27 +14.3%
Full HD	30 +131%	13 −131%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −60%	8−9 +60%
Hitman 3	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −5.9%	35−40 +5.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −60%	8−9 +60%
Hitman 3	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −50%	18 +50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −5.9%	35−40 +5.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −60%	8−9 +60%
Hitman 3	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +100%	6 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −5.9%	35−40 +5.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−33.3%

4−5
+33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−25%

5−6
+25%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	1−2
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

This is how GTX 285M and Radeon 520 compete in popular games:

Radeon 520 is 14% faster in 900p
GTX 285M is 131% faster in 1080p

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

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 285M is 100% faster.
in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 520 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 285M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
Radeon 520 is ahead in 33 tests (62%)
there's a draw in 19 tests (36%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.65	2.04
Recency	1 February 2010	18 April 2017
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	50 Watt

Radeon 520 has a 23.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 520 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285M in performance tests.

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