GeForce GT 520M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 and GeForce GT 520M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms GT 520M by a whopping 1290% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 449 | 1172 |
| Place by popularity | 17 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 4.24 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 5 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $59.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 96 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 12 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 4.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.1152 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
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 | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 data | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 12 API |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/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.
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.
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 | 95−100
+1257%
| 7
−1257%
|
| Full HD | 160−170
+1233%
| 12
−1233%
|
| 1200p | 95−100
+1257%
| 7
−1257%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+1350%
|
4−5
−1350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+325%
|
8−9
−325%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+217%
|
27−30
−217%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+625%
|
20−22
−625%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+431%
|
12−14
−431%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+1350%
|
4−5
−1350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+325%
|
8−9
−325%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+217%
|
27−30
−217%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+431%
|
12−14
−431%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+325%
|
8−9
−325%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+1350%
|
4−5
−1350%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+2333%
|
3−4
−2333%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 100−110
+1429%
|
7−8
−1429%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 50−55
+1150%
|
4−5
−1150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 and GT 520M compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 1257% faster in 900p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 1233% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 1257% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 2333% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 is ahead in 21 test (60%)
- there's a draw in 14 tests (40%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.15 | 0.73 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 5 January 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 40 nm |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 has a 1290.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
