Radeon RX 9070 XT vs Quadro M520
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M520 with Radeon RX 9070 XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 9070 XT outperforms M520 by a whopping 1318% 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 | 674 | 32 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 97 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 55.83 |
| Power efficiency | 13.60 | 15.85 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | RDNA 4.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GM108 | Navi 48 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 6 March 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 384 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 1041 MHz | 1660 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1019 MHz | 2970 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 53,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 304 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 16.66 | 760.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7995 TFLOPS | 48.66 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 128 |
| TMUs | 16 | 256 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 64 |
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 |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 2518 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40 GB/s | 644.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 5.0 | - |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 20
−945%
| 209
+945%
|
| 1440p | 9−10
−1344%
| 130
+1344%
|
| 4K | 12
−592%
| 83
+592%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.87 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.61 |
| 4K | no data | 7.22 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−1537%
|
300−350
+1537%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−1700%
|
160−170
+1700%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 14−16
−1800%
|
280−290
+1800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−816%
|
170−180
+816%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−1537%
|
300−350
+1537%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−1700%
|
160−170
+1700%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 14−16
−1800%
|
280−290
+1800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−2014%
|
296
+2014%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
−1019%
|
300−350
+1019%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−1114%
|
250−260
+1114%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−1500%
|
190−200
+1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−878%
|
170−180
+878%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−519%
|
350−400
+519%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−816%
|
170−180
+816%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−1537%
|
300−350
+1537%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
−248%
|
270−280
+248%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−1700%
|
160−170
+1700%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 14−16
−1800%
|
280−290
+1800%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−1275%
|
550−600
+1275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−1936%
|
285
+1936%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
−1019%
|
300−350
+1019%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−1114%
|
250−260
+1114%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−1500%
|
190−200
+1500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1013%
|
160−170
+1013%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−1733%
|
160−170
+1733%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−878%
|
170−180
+878%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−3723%
|
497
+3723%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−519%
|
350−400
+519%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−816%
|
170−180
+816%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−1700%
|
160−170
+1700%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 14−16
−1800%
|
280−290
+1800%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−1275%
|
550−600
+1275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−1829%
|
270
+1829%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−1114%
|
250−260
+1114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−878%
|
170−180
+878%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−2023%
|
276
+2023%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−519%
|
350−400
+519%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
−1019%
|
300−350
+1019%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−2700%
|
190−200
+2700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−1337%
|
500−550
+1337%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−2640%
|
130−140
+2640%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−2650%
|
110−120
+2650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−447%
|
170−180
+447%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−784%
|
450−500
+784%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−5333%
|
160−170
+5333%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2200%
|
90−95
+2200%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 9−10
−1744%
|
160−170
+1744%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−3150%
|
260
+3150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−1900%
|
220−230
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−3433%
|
212
+3433%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
−1578%
|
150−160
+1578%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dead Island 2 | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−829%
|
150−160
+829%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 174 |
| Valorant | 21−24
−1339%
|
300−350
+1339%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−11800%
|
110−120
+11800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4300%
|
40−45
+4300%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 6−7
−1133%
|
70−75
+1133%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1275%
|
220−230
+1275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−3700%
|
152
+3700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2767%
|
170−180
+2767%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−1820%
|
95−100
+1820%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1480%
|
75−80
+1480%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
This is how Quadro M520 and RX 9070 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 9070 XT is 945% faster in 1080p
- RX 9070 XT is 1344% faster in 1440p
- RX 9070 XT is 592% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 9070 XT is 11800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 9070 XT is ahead in 58 tests (95%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.77 | 67.62 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 6 March 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 304 Watt |
Quadro M520 has 1116% lower power consumption.
RX 9070 XT, on the other hand, has a 1317.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 9070 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M520 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M520 is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX 9070 XT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
