Radeon 520 vs Quadro M4000

Place in the ranking	329	893
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.87	no data
Power efficiency	9.91	2.80
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GM204	Banks
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	29 June 2015 (9 years ago)	18 April 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$791	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores	1664	320
Core clock speed	773 MHz	1030 MHz
Number of transistors	5,200 million	690 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	80.39	20.60
Floating-point processing power	2.573 TFLOPS	0.6592 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	8
TMUs	104	20

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	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	241 mm	no data
Width	1" (2.5 cm)	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	None
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	1125 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 192 GB/s	36 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	4x DisplayPort	No outputs
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no data
Multi-display synchronization	Quadro Sync	no data

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
High-Performance Video I/O6	+	no data
nView Desktop Management	+	no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (11_1)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2.131
CUDA	5.2	-

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.

Quadro M4000 14.93
+748%

Radeon 520 1.76

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.

Quadro M4000 6677
+748%

Radeon 520 787

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.

Quadro M4000 20179
+279%

Radeon 520 5327

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro M4000 24231
+446%

Radeon 520 4434

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:

Full HD

120−130
+700%

−700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

6.59

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Fortnite	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Valorant	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	19 +0%	19 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Fortnite	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10 +0%	10 +0%
Valorant	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	18 +0%	18 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6 +0%	6 +0%
Valorant	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Valorant	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%