GeForce GT 520 vs Radeon HD 8550G

Place in the ranking	1087	1140
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	2.13	1.95
Architecture	TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Devastator Lite	GF119
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	23 May 2013 (11 years ago)	13 April 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$59

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	256	48
Core clock speed	515 MHz	810 MHz
Boost clock speed	720 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,303 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	32 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	29 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	102 °C
Texture fill rate	11.52	6.480
Floating-point processing power	0.3686 TFLOPS	0.1555 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	16	8

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
Bus support	no data	16x PCI-E 2.0
Interface	IGP	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Height	no data	2.7" (6.9 cm)
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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	1 GB (DDR3)
Memory bus width	System Shared	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	900 MHz (DDR3)
Memory bandwidth	no data	14.4 GB/s
Shared memory	+	no data

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	Dual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional)
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.2 (11_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.0	5.1
OpenGL	4.4	4.2
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	-	+

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.

HD 8550G 1.07
+32.1%

GT 520 0.81

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.

HD 8550G 411
+32.2%

GT 520 311

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 made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

HD 8550G 792
+108%

GT 520 380

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

16
+33.3%

12−14

−33.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

4.92

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +33.3%	24−27 −33.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +33.3%	24−27 −33.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +33.3%	24−27 −33.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%