GeForce GT 520M vs GTX 460 OEM
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 460 OEM with GeForce GT 520M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 460 OEM outperforms GT 520M by a whopping 312% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 738 | 1124 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | N12P-GP/LV |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 October 2010 (13 years ago) | 5 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $59.99 |
| Current price | $99 | $237 (4x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 336 | 48 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 740 / 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 36.40 | 5.9 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 873.6 gflops | 129.02 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 460 OEM and GeForce GT 520M 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.
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 210 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1536 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3400 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 108.8 GB/s | 12.8 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 | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.1 | + |
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 | 27−30
+286%
| 7
−286%
|
| Full HD | 45−50
+275%
| 12
−275%
|
| 1200p | 27−30
+286%
| 7
−286%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+275%
|
12−14
−275%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+275%
|
12−14
−275%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+275%
|
12−14
−275%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
This is how GTX 460 OEM and GT 520M compete in popular games:
- GTX 460 OEM is 286% faster in 900p
- GTX 460 OEM is 275% faster in 1080p
- GTX 460 OEM is 286% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.01 | 0.73 |
| Recency | 11 October 2010 | 5 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1536 MB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 12 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 460 OEM is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 460 OEM is a desktop card while GeForce GT 520M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
