GeForce GT 520M vs 9600 GSO 512

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 9600 GSO 512 with GeForce GT 520M, including specs and performance data.

9600 GSO 512
2008
512 MB GDDR3, 90 Watt
0.85
+14.9%

9600 GSO 512 outperforms GT 520M by a moderate 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking11341159
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency0.664.29
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameG94GF108
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date23 October 2008 (16 years ago)5 January 2011 (13 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 cores4848
Core clock speed650 MHz600 MHz
Number of transistors505 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)90 Watt12 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate15.604.800
Floating-point processing power0.156 TFLOPS0.1152 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs248

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length229 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone
SLI options2-way-

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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth57.6 GB/s12.8 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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVIHDTVPortable Device Dependent
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

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.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 API
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL2.14.5
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/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.

9600 GSO 512 0.85
+14.9%
GT 520M 0.74

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.

9600 GSO 512 329
+15.4%
GT 520M 285

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:

900p9−10
+12.5%
8
−12.5%
Full HD12−14
+0%
12
+0%
1200p8−9
+14.3%
7
−14.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data5.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how 9600 GSO 512 and GT 520M compete in popular games:

  • 9600 GSO 512 is 13% faster in 900p
  • A tie in 1080p
  • 9600 GSO 512 is 14% faster in 1200p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 35 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.85 0.74
Recency 23 October 2008 5 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 1 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 90 Watt 12 Watt

9600 GSO 512 has a 14.9% higher aggregate performance score.

GT 520M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 650% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 9600 GSO 512 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 9600 GSO 512 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 520M is a notebook one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GSO 512
GeForce 9600 GSO 512
NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
GeForce GT 520M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 60 votes

Rate GeForce 9600 GSO 512 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 407 votes

Rate GeForce GT 520M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.