Tesla T4 vs Radeon HD 6520G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6520G with Tesla T4, including specs and performance data.
Tesla T4 outperforms HD 6520G by a whopping 3495% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1161 | 208 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.52 | 27.41 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Sumo | TU104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 December 2011 (13 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 | 400 MHz | 585 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1590 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 6.400 | 254.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.256 TFLOPS | 8.141 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 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 | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
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:
| 900p | 8
−3400%
| 280−290
+3400%
|
| Full HD | 6
−3400%
| 210−220
+3400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−3471%
|
250−260
+3471%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−3471%
|
250−260
+3471%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−3300%
|
170−180
+3300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−3400%
|
280−290
+3400%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−3400%
|
1050−1100
+3400%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−3471%
|
250−260
+3471%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
−3400%
|
700−750
+3400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−3362%
|
450−500
+3362%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−3300%
|
170−180
+3300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−3400%
|
280−290
+3400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−3300%
|
170−180
+3300%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−3400%
|
1050−1100
+3400%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−3471%
|
250−260
+3471%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−3362%
|
450−500
+3362%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−3300%
|
170−180
+3300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−3400%
|
280−290
+3400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−3300%
|
170−180
+3300%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−3400%
|
1050−1100
+3400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−3400%
|
140−150
+3400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−3233%
|
500−550
+3233%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−3400%
|
140−150
+3400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
This is how HD 6520G and Tesla T4 compete in popular games:
- Tesla T4 is 3400% faster in 900p
- Tesla T4 is 3400% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.76 | 27.32 |
| Recency | 7 December 2011 | 13 September 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 70 Watt |
HD 6520G has 100% lower power consumption.
Tesla T4, on the other hand, has a 3494.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 166.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Tesla T4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6520G in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6520G 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.
