FirePro V3900 vs Radeon 520

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon 520 with FirePro V3900, including specs and performance data.

Radeon 520
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
1.97
+23.1%

520 outperforms V3900 by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking886949
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.822.29
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameBanksTurks
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date18 April 2017 (7 years ago)7 February 2012 (12 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 cores320480
Core clock speed1030 MHz650 MHz
Number of transistors690 million716 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt199 Watt
Texture fill rate20.6015.60
Floating-point processing power0.6592 TFLOPS0.624 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs2024

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 supportno dataPCIe 2.1 x16
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Form factorno datahalf height / half length
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1125 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth36 GB/s28 GB/s
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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort
DisplayPort countno data1
Dual-link DVI support-+
HD сomponent video output-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

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.

Radeon 520 1.97
+23.1%
FirePro V3900 1.60

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.

Radeon 520 787
+23%
FirePro V3900 640

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.

Radeon 520 5324
+240%
FirePro V3900 1564

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 HD13
+30%
10−12
−30%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Dota 2 6
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Fortnite 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
World of Tanks 35−40
+30%
30−33
−30%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Dota 2 18
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+25%
16−18
−25%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
World of Tanks 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Valorant 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Dota 2 16−18
+33.3%
12−14
−33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 16−18
+33.3%
12−14
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
Valorant 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

This is how Radeon 520 and FirePro V3900 compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 520 is 30% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.97 1.60
Recency 18 April 2017 7 February 2012
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 199 Watt

Radeon 520 has a 23.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 298% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 520 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro V3900 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon 520 is a notebook card while FirePro V3900 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon 520
Radeon 520
AMD FirePro V3900
FirePro V3900

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.


3 339 votes

Rate Radeon 520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 96 votes

Rate FirePro V3900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.