GeForce GT 520M vs Radeon R9 280
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 280 with GeForce GT 520M, including specs and performance data.
R9 280 outperforms 520M by a whopping 1844% 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 | 419 | 1238 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.69 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 5.09 | 4.36 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GF108 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 4 March 2014 (12 years ago) | 5 January 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | $59.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 280 has 46800% better value for money than GT 520M.
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 | 1792 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 933 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 104.5 | 4.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.344 TFLOPS | 0.1152 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 112 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 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 | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 275 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | 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 | 3 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 240 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 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.
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.
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 | 130−140
+1757%
| 7
−1757%
|
| Full HD | 230−240
+1817%
| 12
−1817%
|
| 1200p | 130−140
+1757%
| 7
−1757%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 1.21
+312%
| 5.00
−312%
|
- R9 280 has 312% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how R9 280 and GT 520M compete in popular games:
- R9 280 is 1757% faster in 900p
- R9 280 is 1817% faster in 1080p
- R9 280 is 1757% faster in 1200p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 29 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.22 | 0.68 |
| Recency | 4 March 2014 | 5 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 12 Watt |
R9 280 has a 1844% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
GT 520M, on the other hand, has 1567% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GT 520M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
