GeForce GT 520M vs GTX 960M

Place in performance ranking	459	1125
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.47	0.01
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2018)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	N16P-GX	N12P-GP/LV
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	12 March 2015 (9 years ago)	5 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$59.99
Current price	$799	$237 (4x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 960M has 14600% better value for money than GT 520M.

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	640	48
CUDA cores	640	48
Core clock speed	1096 MHz	740 / 600 MHz
Boost clock speed	1202 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,870 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	12 Watt
Texture fill rate	47.04	5.9 billion/sec
Floating-point performance	1,505 gflops	129.02 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 960M and GeForce GT 520M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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.

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None
SLI options	+	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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1536 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	2500 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	12.8 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	No outputs
VGA аnalog display support	+	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	+	no data
HDMI	+	no data

Supported technologies

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

GameStream	+	no data
GeForce ShadowPlay	+	no data
GPU Boost	2.0	no data
GameWorks	+	no data
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	no data
Optimus	+	+
BatteryBoost	+	no data
Ansel	+	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	4.5	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	+	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 960M 8.78
+1119%

GT 520M 0.72

GTX 960M outperforms GT 520M by 1119% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 960M 3396
+1113%

GT 520M 280

GTX 960M outperforms GT 520M by 1113% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 960M 5278
+951%

GT 520M 502

GTX 960M outperforms GT 520M by 951% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

GTX 960M 10745
+784%

GT 520M 1215

GTX 960M outperforms GT 520M by 784% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 960M 32
+700%

GT 520M 4

GTX 960M outperforms GT 520M by 700% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

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	95 +1257%	7 −1257%
Full HD	36 +227%	11 −227%
1200p	85−90 +1114%	7 −1114%
1440p	15 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
4K	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

14−16
+367%

3−4

−367%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	25 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14	0−1
Battlefield 5	30 +1400%	2−3 −1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Far Cry 5	28 +460%	5−6 −460%
Far Cry New Dawn	31 +1450%	2−3 −1450%
Forza Horizon 4	35 +1067%	3−4 −1067%
Hitman 3	20−22 +567%	3−4 −567%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +173%	10−12 −173%
Metro Exodus	31 +1450%	2−3 −1450%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +178%	9−10 −178%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14	0−1
Battlefield 5	23 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +420%	5−6 −420%
Far Cry New Dawn	24 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Forza Horizon 4	31 +933%	3−4 −933%
Hitman 3	20−22 +567%	3−4 −567%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +173%	10−12 −173%
Metro Exodus	25 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24 +700%	3−4 −700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	11	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Far Cry 5	18 +260%	5−6 −260%
Forza Horizon 4	25 +733%	3−4 −733%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +173%	10−12 −173%
Metro Exodus	23 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 +367%	3−4 −367%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	16	0−1
Hitman 3	10−12	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry 5	15 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Forza Horizon 4	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Metro Exodus	15 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5	0−1

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%
Far Cry New Dawn	8	0−1
Hitman 3	5−6	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Battlefield 5	3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	10−12	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Metro Exodus	6 +50%	4−5 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+350%

2−3

−350%

This is how GTX 960M and GT 520M compete in popular games:

GTX 960M is 1257% faster in 900p
GTX 960M is 227% faster in 1080p
GTX 960M is 1114% faster in 1200p
GTX 960M is 1400% faster in 1440p
GTX 960M is 1300% faster in 4K

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

in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 960M is 1400% faster than the GT 520M.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 960M is ahead in 31 test (97%)
there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.78	0.72
Recency	12 March 2015	5 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1536 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	12 Watt