Radeon Steam Deck 8CU vs Quadro P520
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P520 with Radeon Steam Deck 8CU, including specs and performance data.
Steam Deck 8CU outperforms P520 by a whopping 112% 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 | 684 | 483 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 20.63 | no data |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | RDNA 2 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | GP108 | RDNA 2 Sephiroth |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 May 2019 (6 years ago) | 9 November 2023 (2 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 cores | 384 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1303 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1493 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 35.83 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.147 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 24 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 1 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 size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | No outputs | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
| 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.
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 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.
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 | 21
−33.3%
| 28
+33.3%
|
| 4K | 20
−100%
| 40−45
+100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−155%
|
55−60
+155%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
−90%
|
18−20
+90%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−130%
|
45−50
+130%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−155%
|
55−60
+155%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
−70%
|
30−35
+70%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
−114%
|
60−65
+114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−95.7%
|
45−50
+95.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−129%
|
30−35
+129%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
−90%
|
18−20
+90%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−94.7%
|
35−40
+94.7%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−59%
|
95−100
+59%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−130%
|
45−50
+130%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−155%
|
55−60
+155%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
−83.3%
|
150−160
+83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Dota 2 | 60
−100%
|
120−130
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
−50%
|
27
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
−114%
|
60−65
+114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−95.7%
|
45−50
+95.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−129%
|
30−35
+129%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+60%
|
10
−60%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
−90%
|
18−20
+90%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6
−250%
|
21−24
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−94.7%
|
35−40
+94.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
−42.1%
|
27−30
+42.1%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−59%
|
95−100
+59%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−130%
|
45−50
+130%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Dota 2 | 54
−104%
|
110−120
+104%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
−43.8%
|
23
+43.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−95.7%
|
45−50
+95.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
−90%
|
18−20
+90%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−94.7%
|
35−40
+94.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
−145%
|
27−30
+145%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−59%
|
95−100
+59%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
−114%
|
60−65
+114%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−90%
|
18−20
+90%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−114%
|
75−80
+114%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−52.8%
|
55−60
+52.8%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−113%
|
110−120
+113%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−550%
|
24−27
+550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−144%
|
21−24
+144%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−108%
|
24−27
+108%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−120%
|
10−12
+120%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−114%
|
14−16
+114%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
−120%
|
21−24
+120%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−129%
|
55−60
+129%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 23
−95.7%
|
45−50
+95.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how Quadro P520 and Steam Deck 8CU compete in popular games:
- Steam Deck 8CU is 33% faster in 1080p
- Steam Deck 8CU is 100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P520 is 60% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Steam Deck 8CU is 1100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P520 performs better in 1 test (2%)
- Steam Deck 8CU performs better in 57 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.83 | 10.22 |
| Recency | 23 May 2019 | 9 November 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 6 nm |
Steam Deck 8CU has a 111.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Steam Deck 8CU 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 Radeon Steam Deck 8CU is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
