Radeon HD 6520G vs Pro WX Vega M GL
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL with Radeon HD 6520G, including specs and performance data.
Pro WX Vega M GL outperforms HD 6520G by a whopping 1516% 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 | 434 | 1199 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 13.36 | 1.54 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 22 | Sumo |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 24 April 2018 (7 years ago) | 7 December 2011 (13 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 | 1280 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 931 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1011 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 1,178 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 80.88 | 6.400 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.588 TFLOPS | 0.256 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 80 | 16 |
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 | IGP |
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 | HBM2 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 1024 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | no data |
| 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 (12_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
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.
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.
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 | 120−130
+1400%
| 8
−1400%
|
| Full HD | 52
+767%
| 6
−767%
|
| 4K | 18
+1700%
| 1−2
−1700%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+1625%
|
4−5
−1625%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+900%
|
5−6
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+425%
|
8−9
−425%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+262%
|
27−30
−262%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+686%
|
21−24
−686%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+515%
|
12−14
−515%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+1625%
|
4−5
−1625%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+900%
|
5−6
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+425%
|
8−9
−425%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+262%
|
27−30
−262%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+515%
|
12−14
−515%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+900%
|
5−6
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+425%
|
8−9
−425%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+262%
|
27−30
−262%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65−70
+1625%
|
4−5
−1625%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+2833%
|
3−4
−2833%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+957%
|
7−8
−957%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+1686%
|
7−8
−1686%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 60−65
+1475%
|
4−5
−1475%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 8−9 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
This is how Pro WX Vega M GL and HD 6520G compete in popular games:
- Pro WX Vega M GL is 1400% faster in 900p
- Pro WX Vega M GL is 767% faster in 1080p
- Pro WX Vega M GL is 1700% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Pro WX Vega M GL is 3700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Pro WX Vega M GL surpassed HD 6520G in all 31 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.15 | 0.69 |
| Recency | 24 April 2018 | 7 December 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Pro WX Vega M GL has a 1515.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.
HD 6520G, on the other hand, has 85.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6520G in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 6520G is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
