To calculate the index we compare the characteristics of graphics cards against their prices.
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M vs AMD Radeon 520
Price now
140$
Games supported
58%
- Interface PCIe 3.0 x8
- Core clock speed 1030
- Max video memory 2048 MB
- Memory type DDR3, GDDR5
- Memory clock speed 2250
- Maximum resolution
- Interface PCIe 3.0 x8
- Core clock speed 810
- Max video memory 2048 MB
- Memory type DDR3
- Memory clock speed 1600 - 1800
- Maximum resolution
Price now
310$
Games supported
58%
General info
Comparison of graphics card architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.
| Place in performance rating | 764 | 765 |
| Value for money | 3.04 | 0.11 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Oland | N14P-GV2, ... |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 21 March 2017 (5 years old) | 1 March 2013 (9 years old) |
| Current price | $140 | $310 |
Value for money
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 320 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1030 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 980 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,040 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Thermal design power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.60 | 31.36 |
| Floating-point performance | 659.2 gflops | 752.6 gflops |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements
Information on Radeon 520 and GeForce GT 740M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
Memory
Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | DDR3, GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | no data | DDR3/GDDR5 |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64/128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2250 MHz | 1600 - 1800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | no data | Up to 3840x2160 |
| LVDS signal support | no data | Up to 1920x1200 |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | Up to 3840x2160 |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP content protection | no data | + |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | no data | + |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | no data | + |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | no data | + |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | no data | + |
API support
APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | no data | + |
Benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.
Overall score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. 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
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Fire Strike Score
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
- 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
- GeekBench 5 OpenCL
- Unigine Heaven 3.0
Passmark
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GT 740M outperforms Radeon 520 by 25% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce GT 740M by 9% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Score
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce GT 740M by 16% in 3DMark Fire Strike Score.
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 seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce GT 740M by 15% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce GT 740M by 14% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce GT 740M by 76% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
GeForce GT 740M outperforms Radeon 520 by 20% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.
Mining hashrates
Cryptocurrency mining performance of Radeon 520 and GeForce GT 740M. Usually measured in megahashes per second.
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | no data | 44 Mh/s |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 15
−6.7%
| 16
+6.7%
|
Popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+42.9%
|
7
−42.9%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+50%
|
4
−50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance rating | 2.01 | 2.00 |
| Recency | 21 March 2017 | 1 March 2013 |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 | 14.4 |
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 320 | 384 |
| Thermal design power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 Watt |
Technical City couldn't decide between
and
The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Competitors of Radeon 520 by NVIDIA
We believe that the nearest equivalent to Radeon 520 from NVIDIA is GeForce GT 740M, which is nearly equal in speed and is lower by 1 position in our rating.
Here are some closest NVIDIA rivals to Radeon 520:
Competitors of GeForce GT 740M by AMD
We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce GT 740M from AMD is Radeon 520, which is nearly equal in speed and higher by 1 position in our rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GT 740M:
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance more or less close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
