Radeon HD 6520G vs GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 with Radeon HD 6520G, including specs and performance data.
780 Rev. 2 outperforms HD 6520G by a whopping 1257% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 492 | 1228 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.10 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.01 | 1.58 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | Sumo |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 September 2013 (12 years ago) | 7 December 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2304 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 863 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 902 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 1,178 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 173.2 | 6.400 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.156 TFLOPS | 0.256 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 8 |
| TMUs | 192 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | no data |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | IGP |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 3.5 | - |
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 | 100−110
+1150%
| 8
−1150%
|
| Full HD | 80−85
+1233%
| 6
−1233%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 8.11 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how GTX 780 Rev. 2 and HD 6520G compete in popular games:
- GTX 780 Rev. 2 is 1150% faster in 900p
- GTX 780 Rev. 2 is 1233% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 32 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.77 | 0.72 |
| Recency | 10 September 2013 | 7 December 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 35 Watt |
GTX 780 Rev. 2 has a 1257% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 14% more advanced lithography process.
HD 6520G, on the other hand, has 614% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6520G in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon HD 6520G is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
