GeForce GT 520 vs Radeon R9 M295X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M295X with GeForce GT 520, including specs and performance data.
R9 M295X outperforms GT 520 by a whopping 1500% 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 | 442 | 1213 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 3.79 | 2.04 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | GF119 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 November 2014 (11 years ago) | 13 April 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $59 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 2048 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 723 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 29 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 102 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 92.54 | 6.480 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.961 TFLOPS | 0.1555 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 128 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | 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 | 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 | Not Listed | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 0 MB | 1 GB (DDR3) |
| Memory bus width | Not Listed | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 900 MHz (DDR3) |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 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 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | Not Listed | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| 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.
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.
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 | 48
+1500%
| 3−4
−1500%
|
| 4K | 26
+2500%
| 1−2
−2500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 19.67 |
| 4K | no data | 59.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+1625%
|
4−5
−1625%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+1625%
|
4−5
−1625%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+1667%
|
3−4
−1667%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1733%
|
6−7
−1733%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+1625%
|
4−5
−1625%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
+1660%
|
10−11
−1660%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+1580%
|
5−6
−1580%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+1667%
|
3−4
−1667%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1733%
|
6−7
−1733%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+1580%
|
5−6
−1580%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+1667%
|
3−4
−1667%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1733%
|
6−7
−1733%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 90−95
+1780%
|
5−6
−1780%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
+1567%
|
6−7
−1567%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+1563%
|
8−9
−1563%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 65−70
+1600%
|
4−5
−1600%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14 | 0−1 |
This is how R9 M295X and GT 520 compete in popular games:
- R9 M295X is 1500% faster in 1080p
- R9 M295X is 2500% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.32 | 0.77 |
| Recency | 23 November 2014 | 13 April 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 29 Watt |
R9 M295X has a 1500% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
GT 520, on the other hand, has 762% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 M295X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M295X is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GT 520 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
