Quadro M520 vs Radeon Pro WX 4130

Place in performance ranking	588	603
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.32	no data
Architecture	Polaris (2016−2019)	Maxwell (2014−2018)
GPU code name	Polaris	GM108
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 March 2017 (7 years ago)	13 January 2017 (7 years ago)
Current price	$2000	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

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	640	384
Core clock speed	no data	756 MHz
Boost clock speed	1053 MHz	1019 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	42.12	16.66

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon Pro WX 4130 and Quadro M520 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	medium sized	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	MXM-A (3.0)
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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	7000 MHz	5012 MHz
Memory bandwidth	96 GB/s	40 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

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync	+	no data
Optimus	no data	+
3D Stereo	no data	+
nView Display Management	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12
Shader Model	6.4	5.0
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.1.126
CUDA	no data	5.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

Pro WX 4130 5.08
+5.2%

Quadro M520 4.83

Radeon Pro WX 4130 outperforms Quadro M520 by 5% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Pro WX 4130 1966
+5.1%

Quadro M520 1870

Radeon Pro WX 4130 outperforms Quadro M520 by 5% in Passmark.

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	21−24 +0%	21 +0%
4K	12−14 +0%	12 +0%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Battlefield 5	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Battlefield 5	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Battlefield 5	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

This is how Pro WX 4130 and Quadro M520 compete in popular games:

Quadro M520 is 0% faster than Pro WX 4130 in 1080p
Quadro M520 is 0% faster than Pro WX 4130 in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro WX 4130 is 50% faster than the Quadro M520.

All in all, in popular games:

Pro WX 4130 is ahead in 26 tests (43%)
there's a draw in 35 tests (57%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.08	4.83
Recency	1 March 2017	13 January 2017
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	25 Watt