GeForce 8800 GT vs Quadro M520

Place in the ranking	633	1045
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.02
Power efficiency	13.52	0.68
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GM108	G92
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	11 January 2017 (7 years ago)	29 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$349

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 cores	384	112
Core clock speed	1041 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	1019 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	105 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	16.66	33.60
Floating-point processing power	0.7995 TFLOPS	0.336 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	16	56

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	medium sized	no data
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Height	no data	Single Slot
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin
SLI options	-	2-way

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	40 GB/s	57.6 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	No outputs	Dual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)	no data	128bit
Optimus	+	-
3D Stereo	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	5.0	+

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.

Quadro M520 4.85
+298%

8800 GT 1.22

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 M520 1872
+297%

8800 GT 471

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	19 +375%	4−5 −375%
4K	14 +367%	3−4 −367%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	87.25
4K	no data	116.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9
+300%

2−3

−300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +343%	7−8 −343%
Hitman 3	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +300%	8−9 −300%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +360%	10−11 −360%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +343%	7−8 −343%
Hitman 3	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +300%	8−9 −300%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	41 +310%	10−11 −310%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +360%	10−11 −360%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +343%	7−8 −343%
Hitman 3	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +300%	8−9 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +360%	10−11 −360%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+333%

3−4
−333%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Hitman 3	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +343%	7−8 −343%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+350%

2−3

−350%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+400%

1−2

−400%

This is how Quadro M520 and 8800 GT compete in popular games:

Quadro M520 is 375% faster in 1080p
Quadro M520 is 367% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.85	1.22
Recency	11 January 2017	29 October 2007
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	105 Watt

Quadro M520 has a 297.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 320% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M520 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M520 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 8800 GT is a desktop one.

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