Tesla T4 vs Radeon 520
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 520 with Tesla T4, including specs and performance data.
Tesla T4 outperforms 520 by a whopping 1256% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 892 | 212 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.80 | 27.23 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Banks | TU104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (7 years ago) | 13 September 2018 (6 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 | 320 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1030 MHz | 585 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1590 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.60 | 254.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6592 TFLOPS | 8.141 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 20 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 36 GB/s | 320.0 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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.
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 | 15
−1233%
| 200−210
+1233%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−1200%
|
65−70
+1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1150%
|
50−55
+1150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−1200%
|
65−70
+1200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−1200%
|
65−70
+1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1150%
|
50−55
+1150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1200%
|
130−140
+1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1173%
|
140−150
+1173%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1182%
|
500−550
+1182%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−1200%
|
65−70
+1200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−1200%
|
65−70
+1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−1182%
|
500−550
+1182%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1150%
|
50−55
+1150%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
−1216%
|
250−260
+1216%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1200%
|
130−140
+1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−1150%
|
50−55
+1150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1173%
|
140−150
+1173%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−1200%
|
130−140
+1200%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1182%
|
500−550
+1182%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−1200%
|
65−70
+1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1150%
|
50−55
+1150%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
−1233%
|
240−250
+1233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1200%
|
130−140
+1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1173%
|
140−150
+1173%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−1233%
|
80−85
+1233%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1182%
|
500−550
+1182%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−1208%
|
170−180
+1208%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1208%
|
170−180
+1208%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−1186%
|
180−190
+1186%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1150%
|
50−55
+1150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1233%
|
200−210
+1233%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−1200%
|
130−140
+1200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−1150%
|
50−55
+1150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
This is how Radeon 520 and Tesla T4 compete in popular games:
- Tesla T4 is 1233% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.05 | 27.79 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 13 September 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 70 Watt |
Radeon 520 has 40% lower power consumption.
Tesla T4, on the other hand, has a 1255.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Tesla T4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 520 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 520 is a notebook card while Tesla T4 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.
