L40 vs Quadro P520

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P520 with L40, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P520
2019
2 GB GDDR5, 18 Watt
4.82

L40 outperforms P520 by a whopping 1015% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking68662
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency20.6213.79
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGP108AD102
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date23 May 2019 (6 years ago)13 October 2022 (3 years ago)

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 cores38418176
Core clock speed1303 MHz735 MHz
Boost clock speed1493 MHz2490 MHz
Number of transistors1,800 million76,300 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt300 Watt
Texture fill rate35.831,414
Floating-point processing power1.147 TFLOPS90.52 TFLOPS
ROPs16192
TMUs24568
Tensor Coresno data568
Ray Tracing Coresno data142
L1 Cache144 KB17.8 MB
L2 Cache512 KB96 MB

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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 16-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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB48 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth48.06 GB/s864.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x DisplayPort 1.4a

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA6.18.9
DLSS-+

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.

Quadro P520 4.82
L40 53.72
+1015%

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 P520 2016
Samples: 544
L40 22466
+1014%

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.

Quadro P520 7967
L40 333904
+4091%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Quadro P520 7209
L40 237295
+3192%

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 HD21
−995%
230−240
+995%
4K20
−1000%
220−230
+1000%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−991%
240−250
+991%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−1000%
110−120
+1000%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 8−9
−963%
85−90
+963%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 20−22
−1000%
220−230
+1000%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−991%
240−250
+991%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−1000%
110−120
+1000%
Far Cry 5 20
−1000%
220−230
+1000%
Fortnite 27−30
−934%
300−310
+934%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−987%
250−260
+987%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
−971%
150−160
+971%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
−1005%
210−220
+1005%
Valorant 60−65
−966%
650−700
+966%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 20−22
−1000%
220−230
+1000%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−991%
240−250
+991%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 80−85
−971%
900−950
+971%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−1000%
110−120
+1000%
Dota 2 60
−983%
650−700
+983%
Far Cry 5 18
−1011%
200−210
+1011%
Fortnite 27−30
−934%
300−310
+934%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−987%
250−260
+987%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
−971%
150−160
+971%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−963%
170−180
+963%
Metro Exodus 6
−983%
65−70
+983%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
−1005%
210−220
+1005%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
−1005%
210−220
+1005%
Valorant 60−65
−966%
650−700
+966%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 20−22
−1000%
220−230
+1000%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−1000%
110−120
+1000%
Dota 2 54
−1011%
600−650
+1011%
Far Cry 5 16
−963%
170−180
+963%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−987%
250−260
+987%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
−1005%
210−220
+1005%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
−991%
120−130
+991%
Valorant 60−65
−966%
650−700
+966%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
−934%
300−310
+934%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−1000%
110−120
+1000%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
−981%
400−450
+981%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
−1011%
400−450
+1011%
Valorant 50−55
−938%
550−600
+938%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−900%
30−33
+900%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−1011%
100−105
+1011%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−983%
130−140
+983%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−971%
75−80
+971%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 10−11
−1000%
110−120
+1000%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−963%
170−180
+963%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%
Valorant 24−27
−983%
260−270
+983%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 2−3
−950%
21−24
+950%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%
Dota 2 23
−987%
250−260
+987%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−971%
75−80
+971%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−1000%
55−60
+1000%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
−1000%
55−60
+1000%

This is how Quadro P520 and L40 compete in popular games:

  • L40 is 995% faster in 1080p
  • L40 is 1000% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.82 53.72
Recency 23 May 2019 13 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 48 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 300 Watt

Quadro P520 has 1567% lower power consumption.

L40, on the other hand, has a 1015% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The L40 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P520 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P520 is a mobile workstation graphics card while L40 is a workstation one.

Other comparisons

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.


3.4 113 votes

Rate Quadro P520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 32 votes

Rate L40 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro P520 or L40, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.