GeForce GT 520 vs Radeon R7 250E
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 250E and GeForce GT 520, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 250E outperforms GT 520 by a whopping 419% 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 | 734 | 1205 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.10 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 5.59 | 2.04 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | GF119 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 20 December 2013 (11 years ago) | 13 April 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | $59 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R7 250E has 10900% better value for money than GT 520.
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 | 512 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 29 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 102 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 25.60 | 6.480 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8192 TFLOPS | 0.1555 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 128 KB |
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).
| Bus support | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.7" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB (DDR3) |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 900 MHz (DDR3) |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.00 | 0.77 |
| Recency | 20 December 2013 | 13 April 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 29 Watt |
R7 250E has a 419.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 520, on the other hand, has 89.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 250E is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
