Radeon Vega 7 vs Quadro P520
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P520 with Radeon Vega 7, including specs and performance data.
Vega 7 outperforms P520 by a substantial 38% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 616 | 534 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 12 |
| Power efficiency | 20.80 | 11.46 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GP108 | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 May 2019 (5 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (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 cores | 384 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1303 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1493 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 35.83 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.147 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 28 |
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 | IGP |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
| 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.
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.
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.
3DMark Time Spy Graphics
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 3dsmax-05
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
−15%
| 23
+15%
|
| 1440p | 18−20
−38.9%
| 25
+38.9%
|
| 4K | 23
+53.3%
| 15
−53.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−26.1%
|
29
+26.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18
+63.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−61.5%
|
21
+61.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−68.8%
|
27
+68.8%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−81.3%
|
29
+81.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
+17.6%
|
17
−17.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+28.6%
|
28
−28.6%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
−37.5%
|
40−45
+37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24
+4.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−54.5%
|
16−18
+54.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
−400%
|
15
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−35.3%
|
21−24
+35.3%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14
−14.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 85−90
+51.7%
|
58
−51.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 54
−29.6%
|
70−75
+29.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−26.9%
|
30−35
+26.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21
−9.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12
+9.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−30.4%
|
60−65
+30.4%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−56.3%
|
25
+56.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−32.4%
|
45−50
+32.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| World of Tanks | 35−40
−38.5%
|
50−55
+38.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−66.7%
|
14−16
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−120%
|
10−12
+120%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−26.7%
|
18−20
+26.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−46.7%
|
21−24
+46.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 23
−30.4%
|
30−33
+30.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how Quadro P520 and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Vega 7 is 15% faster in 1080p
- Vega 7 is 39% faster in 1440p
- Quadro P520 is 53% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in World of Tanks, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P520 is 52% faster.
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Vega 7 is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P520 is ahead in 5 tests (10%)
- Vega 7 is ahead in 42 tests (82%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (8%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.43 | 7.48 |
| Recency | 23 May 2019 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 45 Watt |
Quadro P520 has 150% lower power consumption.
Vega 7, on the other hand, has a 37.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P520 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P520 is a mobile workstation card while Radeon Vega 7 is a mobile workstation 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.
