FirePro M6000 vs Quadro M520

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M520 and FirePro M6000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro M520
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 25 Watt
4.88
+3.6%

Quadro M520 outperforms FirePro M6000 by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking603614
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.49
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)GCN (2011−2017)
GPU code nameGM108Heathrow
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date13 January 2017 (7 years ago)1 July 2012 (12 years ago)
Current priceno data$162

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores384640
Core clock speed756 MHz750 MHz
Boost clock speed1019 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt43 Watt
Texture fill rate16.6632.00
Floating-point performanceno data1,024 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro M520 and FirePro M6000 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizemedium sizedmedium sized
Bus supportno datan/a
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)MXM-B (3.0)
Form factorno dataMXM-B
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed5012 MHz4500 MHz
Memory bandwidth40 GB/s72 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
StereoOutput3Dno data1

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+no data
3D Stereo+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (11_1)
Shader Model5.05.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA5.0no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

Quadro M520 4.88
+3.6%
FirePro M6000 4.71

Quadro M520 outperforms FirePro M6000 by 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Quadro M520 1886
+3.6%
FirePro M6000 1820

Quadro M520 outperforms FirePro M6000 by 4% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Quadro M520 2658
+9.7%
FirePro M6000 2422

Quadro M520 outperforms FirePro M6000 by 10% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Quadro M520 11278
+5%
FirePro M6000 10744

Quadro M520 outperforms FirePro M6000 by 5% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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:

900p60−65
+3.4%
58
−3.4%
Full HD21
−124%
47
+124%
4K12
+20%
10−12
−20%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 no data
Battlefield 5 0−1 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 no data
Far Cry 5 0−1 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 no data
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 no data
Hitman 3 0−1 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 no data
Metro Exodus 0−1 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 no data

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 no data
Battlefield 5 0−1 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 no data
Far Cry 5 0−1 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 no data
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 no data
Hitman 3 0−1 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 no data
Metro Exodus 0−1 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 no data
Far Cry 5 0−1 no data
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 no data

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 no data

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 no data
Far Cry 5 0−1 no data
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 no data
Hitman 3 0−1 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 no data
Metro Exodus 0−1 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 no data

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 no data

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 no data
Hitman 3 0−1 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 no data

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 no data
Far Cry 5 0−1 no data
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 no data
Metro Exodus 0−1 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 no data

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 no data

This is how Quadro M520 and FirePro M6000 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro M520 is 3% faster in 900p
  • FirePro M6000 is 124% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro M520 is 20% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.88 4.71
Recency 13 January 2017 1 July 2012
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 43 Watt

Quadro M520 has a 3.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and 72% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro M520 and FirePro M6000.


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 M520
Quadro M520
AMD FirePro M6000
FirePro M6000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.6 28 votes

Rate Quadro M520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 10 votes

Rate FirePro M6000 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.