GeForce GT 520 vs GTX 750

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 750 and GeForce GT 520, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 750
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
8.04
+944%

GTX 750 outperforms GT 520 by a whopping 944% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking5141163
Place by popularity69not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.270.01
Power efficiency10.711.94
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGM107GF119
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date18 February 2014 (11 years ago)13 April 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$119 $59

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

GTX 750 has 42600% better value for money than GT 520.

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 cores51248
Core clock speed1020 MHz810 MHz
Boost clock speed1085 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt29 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature95 °C102 °C
Texture fill rate34.726.480
Floating-point processing power1.111 TFLOPS0.1555 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs328

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).

Bus supportPCI Express 3.016x PCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length145 mm145 mm
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)2.7" (6.9 cm)
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB (DDR3)
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed5.0 GB/s900 MHz (DDR3)
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s14.4 GB/s

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 ConnectorsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMIDual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional)
Multi monitor support3 displays+
HDMI++
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x15362048x1536
Audio input for HDMIInternalInternal

Supported technologies

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

Blu Ray 3D+-
3D Gaming+-
3D Vision+-
3D Vision Live+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.44.2
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
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.

GTX 750 8.04
+944%
GT 520 0.77

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 750 3338
+946%
GT 520 319

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.

GTX 750 3970
+945%
GT 520 380

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.

GTX 750 9306
+630%
GT 520 1275

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.04 0.77
Recency 18 February 2014 13 April 2011
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB (DDR3)
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 29 Watt

GTX 750 has a 944.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 520, on the other hand, has 89.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 750 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520 in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750
GeForce GTX 750
NVIDIA GeForce GT 520
GeForce GT 520

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 2451 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 750 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 810 votes

Rate GeForce GT 520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 750 or GeForce GT 520, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.