GeForce GT 520M vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

Place in the ranking	489	1164
Place by popularity	28	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	41.29	4.24
Architecture	Vega (2017−2020)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Vega	GF108
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	7 January 2020 (5 years ago)	5 January 2011 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$59.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	no data	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	2100 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	12 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	4.800
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.1152 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	4
TMUs	no data	8

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).

Interface	no data	PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	no data	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	no data	1 GB
Memory bus width	no data	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	12.8 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 data

Portable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12_1	12 API
Shader Model	no data	5.1
OpenGL	no data	4.5
OpenCL	no data	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/A
CUDA	-	+

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. 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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 9.01
+1118%

GT 520M 0.74

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 5891
+1073%

GT 520M 502

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 22428
+884%

GT 520M 2280

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	95−100 +1088%	8 −1088%
Full HD	23 +91.7%	12 −91.7%
1200p	85−90 +1114%	7 −1114%
1440p	17 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
4K	9	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	5.00
1440p	no data	59.99

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	13 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	19 +533%	3−4 −533%
Elden Ring	18	0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Counter-Strike 2	12 +71.4%	7−8 −71.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +400%	3−4 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	32 +357%	7−8 −357%
Metro Exodus	27 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
Red Dead Redemption 2	33 +560%	5−6 −560%
Valorant	44 +1367%	3−4 −1367%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Counter-Strike 2	9 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +267%	3−4 −267%
Dota 2	29 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Elden Ring	22	0−1
Far Cry 5	30 +275%	8−9 −275%
Fortnite	50−55 +2550%	2−3 −2550%
Forza Horizon 4	27 +286%	7−8 −286%
Grand Theft Auto V	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Metro Exodus	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	57 +470%	10−11 −470%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12 +140%	5−6 −140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +350%	6−7 −350%
Valorant	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
World of Tanks	48 +153%	18−20 −153%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Counter-Strike 2	8 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +200%	3−4 −200%
Dota 2	48 +1500%	3−4 −1500%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +375%	8−9 −375%
Forza Horizon 4	23 +229%	7−8 −229%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +610%	10−11 −610%
Valorant	37 +1133%	3−4 −1133%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	9	0−1
Elden Ring	12	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	9	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	22 +450%	4−5 −450%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8	0−1
World of Tanks	21 +600%	3−4 −600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Forza Horizon 4	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Metro Exodus	17 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Valorant	39 +680%	5−6 −680%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Dota 2	10 −50%	14−16 +50%
Elden Ring	6	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	10 −50%	14−16 +50%
Metro Exodus	6	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	13 +550%	2−3 −550%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10 −50%	14−16 +50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Dota 2	18 +20%	14−16 −20%
Far Cry 5	10−12	0−1
Fortnite	9−10	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	9	0−1
Valorant	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%

This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GT 520M compete in popular games:

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1088% faster in 900p
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 92% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1114% faster in 1200p
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1600% faster in 1440p

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

in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 2550% faster.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 520M is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 30 tests (86%)
GT 520M is ahead in 4 tests (11%)
there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.01	0.74
Recency	7 January 2020	5 January 2011
Chip lithography	7 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	12 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 1117.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

GT 520M, on the other hand, has 25% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.