GeForce GT 520M vs Quadro P1000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P1000 with GeForce GT 520M, including specs and performance data.
P1000 outperforms 520M by a whopping 1494% 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 | 459 | 1218 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.21 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 20.53 | 4.29 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 February 2017 (8 years ago) | 5 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $375 | $59.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro P1000 has 22000% better value for money than GT 520M.
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 | 640 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1493 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1519 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 48.61 | 4.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.555 TFLOPS | 0.1152 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Width | MXM Module | no data |
| 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 | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96.13 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 | Portable Device Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | + |
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.
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.
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.
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 | 110−120
+1471%
| 7
−1471%
|
| Full HD | 43
+258%
| 12
−258%
|
| 1200p | 110−120
+1471%
| 7
−1471%
|
| 4K | 11 | 0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 8.72
−74.4%
| 5.00
+74.4%
|
| 4K | 34.09 | no data |
- GT 520M has 74% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 32
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+840%
|
5−6
−840%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+245%
|
27−30
−245%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+700%
|
20−22
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+533%
|
12−14
−533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 29
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+840%
|
5−6
−840%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+245%
|
27−30
−245%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+533%
|
12−14
−533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+840%
|
5−6
−840%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+245%
|
27−30
−245%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65−70
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+2667%
|
3−4
−2667%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+914%
|
7−8
−914%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1600%
|
7−8
−1600%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+46.7%
|
14−16
−46.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 55−60
+1350%
|
4−5
−1350%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
This is how Quadro P1000 and GT 520M compete in popular games:
- Quadro P1000 is 1471% faster in 900p
- Quadro P1000 is 258% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P1000 is 1471% 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 Quadro P1000 is 3100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P1000 surpassed GT 520M in all 36 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.20 | 0.64 |
| Recency | 7 February 2017 | 5 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 12 Watt |
Quadro P1000 has a 1493.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
GT 520M, on the other hand, has 233.3% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P1000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 520M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
