RTX A2000 vs Radeon HD 7520G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7520G with RTX A2000, including specs and performance data.
RTX A2000 outperforms HD 7520G by a whopping 4195% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1211 | 186 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 33.26 |
| Power efficiency | 1.65 | 35.36 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Scrapper | GA106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 6 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 10 August 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 192 | 3328 |
| Core clock speed | 496 MHz | 562 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 685 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.220 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.263 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 48 |
| TMUs | 12 | 104 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 104 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 26 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 3.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 3 MB |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 167 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-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 | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 288.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 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.
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.
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 | 28
−225%
| 91
+225%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−4200%
| 43
+4200%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 28 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.93 |
| 1440p | no data | 10.44 |
| 4K | no data | 16.04 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3600%
|
70−75
+3600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3600%
|
70−75
+3600%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−11300%
|
110−120
+11300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−10700%
|
108
+10700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−2440%
|
120−130
+2440%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1538%
|
130−140
+1538%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−597%
|
200−210
+597%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−1219%
|
270−280
+1219%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3600%
|
70−75
+3600%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−4131%
|
550−600
+4131%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−11300%
|
110−120
+11300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−9700%
|
98
+9700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−2440%
|
120−130
+2440%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−5900%
|
60
+5900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1538%
|
130−140
+1538%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1850%
|
117
+1850%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−597%
|
200−210
+597%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3600%
|
70−75
+3600%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−4131%
|
550−600
+4131%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−11300%
|
110−120
+11300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−9000%
|
91
+9000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−2440%
|
120−130
+2440%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1538%
|
130−140
+1538%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−967%
|
64
+967%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−597%
|
200−210
+597%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−2467%
|
75−80
+2467%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 4−5
−5600%
|
220−230
+5600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2088%
|
170−180
+2088%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 35−40 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−3750%
|
75−80
+3750%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 61 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−4350%
|
85−90
+4350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−2250%
|
47
+2250%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−8200%
|
80−85
+8200%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−300%
|
56
+300%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−4850%
|
190−200
+4850%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 121
+0%
|
121
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
This is how HD 7520G and RTX A2000 compete in popular games:
- RTX A2000 is 225% faster in 1080p
- RTX A2000 is 4200% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Escape from Tarkov, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX A2000 is 11300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX A2000 performs better in 34 tests (58%)
- there's a draw in 25 tests (42%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.75 | 32.21 |
| Recency | 6 June 2012 | 10 August 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 70 Watt |
HD 7520G has 100% lower power consumption.
RTX A2000, on the other hand, has a 4194.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7520G in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7520G is a notebook graphics card while RTX A2000 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.
