GeForce GT 520 vs Quadro P4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 with GeForce GT 520, including specs and performance data.
P4000 outperforms GT 520 by a whopping 3587% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 196 | 1152 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 17.40 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 19.83 | 1.95 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GF119 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (8 years ago) | 13 April 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $815 | $59 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Quadro P4000 has 173900% better value for money than GT 520.
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 | 1792 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1202 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 29 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 102 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 165.8 | 6.480 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.304 TFLOPS | 0.1555 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 4 |
| TMUs | 112 | 8 |
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).
| Bus support | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.7" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 (DDR3) |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1901 MHz | 900 MHz (DDR3) |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 4x DisplayPort | Dual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional) |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | 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 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | + |
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.
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.
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:
| Full HD | 69
+6800%
| 1−2
−6800%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 11.81
+400%
| 59.00
−400%
|
- Quadro P4000 has 400% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+6200%
|
1−2
−6200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+4300%
|
2−3
−4300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+6200%
|
1−2
−6200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+4500%
|
3−4
−4500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+3850%
|
2−3
−3850%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+3750%
|
2−3
−3750%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+6200%
|
1−2
−6200%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+3900%
|
3−4
−3900%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+4300%
|
2−3
−4300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+6200%
|
1−2
−6200%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+4950%
|
2−3
−4950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+4667%
|
3−4
−4667%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+4500%
|
3−4
−4500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+3850%
|
2−3
−3850%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−105
+4900%
|
2−3
−4900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+3750%
|
2−3
−3750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+4300%
|
4−5
−4300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+6200%
|
1−2
−6200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 100−110
+4950%
|
2−3
−4950%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+3900%
|
3−4
−3900%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+3800%
|
7−8
−3800%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+4300%
|
2−3
−4300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+6200%
|
1−2
−6200%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+4950%
|
2−3
−4950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+4500%
|
3−4
−4500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+3850%
|
2−3
−3850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+4300%
|
4−5
−4300%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+3900%
|
3−4
−3900%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+5200%
|
1−2
−5200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+5200%
|
1−2
−5200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+4275%
|
4−5
−4275%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 190−200
+3820%
|
5−6
−3820%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+4550%
|
2−3
−4550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+4050%
|
2−3
−4050%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+6700%
|
1−2
−6700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+4200%
|
2−3
−4200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+4600%
|
2−3
−4600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
This is how Quadro P4000 and GT 520 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P4000 is 6800% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 29.13 | 0.79 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 13 April 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB (DDR3) |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 29 Watt |
Quadro P4000 has a 3587.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
GT 520, on the other hand, has 244.8% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 520 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
