GeForce GT 520M vs Quadro M5000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5000M with GeForce GT 520M, including specs and performance data.
M5000M outperforms 520M by a whopping 2394% 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 | 347 | 1218 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 12.85 | 4.29 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 18 August 2015 (10 years ago) | 5 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $59.99 |
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 | 1,536 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 975 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1051 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 93.60 | 4.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.995 TFLOPS | 0.1152 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 4 |
| TMUs | 96 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | 12.8 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | 5.2 | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 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.
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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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 | 170−180
+2329%
| 7
−2329%
|
| Full HD | 84
+600%
| 12
−600%
|
| 1200p | 170−180
+2329%
| 7
−2329%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+3133%
|
3−4
−3133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+3550%
|
2−3
−3550%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+3133%
|
3−4
−3133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+3000%
|
3−4
−3000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1300%
|
5−6
−1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+2600%
|
2−3
−2600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+700%
|
8−9
−700%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+362%
|
27−30
−362%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+3550%
|
2−3
−3550%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+3133%
|
3−4
−3133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+985%
|
20−22
−985%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+750%
|
12−14
−750%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+3000%
|
3−4
−3000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1300%
|
5−6
−1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+2600%
|
2−3
−2600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+3100%
|
2−3
−3100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+700%
|
8−9
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 67
+1017%
|
6−7
−1017%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+362%
|
27−30
−362%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+3550%
|
2−3
−3550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+750%
|
12−14
−750%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1300%
|
5−6
−1300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+700%
|
8−9
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+533%
|
6−7
−533%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+362%
|
27−30
−362%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 90−95
+3000%
|
3−4
−3000%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+4100%
|
3−4
−4100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+2243%
|
7−8
−2243%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+2683%
|
6−7
−2683%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 95−100
+2300%
|
4−5
−2300%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+2900%
|
2−3
−2900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
This is how M5000M and GT 520M compete in popular games:
- M5000M is 2329% faster in 900p
- M5000M is 600% faster in 1080p
- M5000M is 2329% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the M5000M is 5500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, M5000M surpassed GT 520M in all 36 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.96 | 0.64 |
| Recency | 18 August 2015 | 5 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 12 Watt |
M5000M has a 2393.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 520M, on the other hand, has 733.3% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M5000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M5000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 520M 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.
