HD Graphics 520 vs Quadro FX 5800

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 5800 with HD Graphics 520, including specs and performance data.

FX 5800
2008
4 GB GDDR3, 189 Watt
3.18
+47.2%

FX 5800 outperforms HD Graphics 520 by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking752867
Place by popularitynot in top-10047
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.04no data
Power efficiency1.169.94
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Generation 9.0 (2015−2016)
GPU code nameGT200BSkylake GT2
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date11 November 2008 (16 years ago)1 September 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,499 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores240192
Core clock speed610 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data900 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm14 nm+
Power consumption (TDP)189 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate48.8021.60
Floating-point processing power0.6221 TFLOPS0.3456 TFLOPS
ROPs323
TMUs8024

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16Ring Bus
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR3DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4
Maximum RAM amount4 GB32 GB
Memory bus width512 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth102.4 GB/sno data
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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, 1x S-VideoPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A+
CUDA1.3-

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. 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.

FX 5800 3.18
+47.2%
HD Graphics 520 2.16

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.

FX 5800 1221
+46.9%
HD Graphics 520 831

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:

900p27−30
+35%
20
−35%
Full HD14−16
+40%
10
−40%

Cost per frame, $

1080p249.93no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Elden Ring 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Elden Ring 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3
+0%
3
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3
+0%
3
+0%
World of Tanks 30
+0%
30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 22
+0%
22
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
World of Tanks 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how FX 5800 and HD Graphics 520 compete in popular games:

  • FX 5800 is 35% faster in 900p
  • FX 5800 is 40% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 51 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.18 2.16
Recency 11 November 2008 1 September 2015
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 32 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 189 Watt 15 Watt

FX 5800 has a 47.2% higher aggregate performance score.

HD Graphics 520, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 1160% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 5800 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 520 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 5800 is a workstation card while HD Graphics 520 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800
Quadro FX 5800
Intel HD Graphics 520
HD Graphics 520

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 27 votes

Rate Quadro FX 5800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 3184 votes

Rate HD Graphics 520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.