GeForce GT 520MX vs Quadro FX 2700M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 2700M with GeForce GT 520MX, including specs and performance data.
FX 2700M outperforms GT 520MX by a significant 28% 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 | 1168 | 1211 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.02 | 2.59 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | G94 | GF119 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 August 2008 (16 years ago) | 30 May 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99.95 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 48 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 530 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 505 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 20 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.72 | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1272 TFLOPS | 0.1728 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 24 | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-HE | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 799 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.14 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 1.1 | + |
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.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+7.1%
|
27−30
−7.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+15%
|
20−22
−15%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| God of War | 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 | 30−33
+7.1%
|
27−30
−7.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| God of War | 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 | 30−33
+7.1%
|
27−30
−7.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| God of War | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the FX 2700M is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FX 2700M performs better in 16 tests (50%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (50%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.87 | 0.68 |
| Recency | 14 August 2008 | 30 May 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 20 Watt |
FX 2700M has a 27.9% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 520MX, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 225% lower power consumption.
The Quadro FX 2700M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520MX in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 2700M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 520MX is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
