GeForce GT 520 vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3870 X2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 3870 X2 with GeForce GT 520, including specs and performance data.
Mobility HD 3870 X2 outperforms GT 520 by a whopping 171% 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 | 922 | 1210 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 1.46 | 2.04 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | M88 | GF119 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 September 2008 (17 years ago) | 13 April 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $59 |
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 | 320 ×2 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 660 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 666 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 29 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 102 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 10.56 ×2 | 6.480 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4224 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.1555 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 ×2 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 ×2 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 128 KB |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.7" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB ×2 | 1 GB (DDR3) |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit ×2 | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 850 MHz | 900 MHz (DDR3) |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.4 GB/s ×2 | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | No outputs | Dual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional) |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+186%
|
14−16
−186%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+207%
|
14−16
−207%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+186%
|
14−16
−186%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+186%
|
14−16
−186%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.09 | 0.77 |
| Recency | 1 September 2008 | 13 April 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB (DDR3) |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 29 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 3870 X2 has a 171.4% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 520, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 279.3% lower power consumption.
The Mobility Radeon HD 3870 X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520 in performance tests.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 3870 X2 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GT 520 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
