GMA X4500 vs GeForce GT 520

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1145not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency1.91no data
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Generation 5.0 (2008)
GPU code nameGF119Eaglelake
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date13 April 2011 (13 years ago)1 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$59 no data

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 cores4880
Core clock speed810 MHz533 MHz
Number of transistors292 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)29 Watt13 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature102 °Cno data
Texture fill rate6.4802.132
Floating-point processing power0.1555 TFLOPSno data
ROPs44
TMUs84

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 support16x PCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length145 mmno data
Height2.7" (6.9 cm)no data
Width1-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GB (DDR3)System Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed900 MHz (DDR3)System Shared
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/sno data

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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional)No outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)10.0
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.22.0
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 13 April 2011 1 June 2008
Chip lithography 40 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 29 Watt 13 Watt

GT 520 has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.

GMA X4500, on the other hand, has 123.1% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GT 520 and GMA X4500. We've got no test results to judge.


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 GT 520
GeForce GT 520
Intel GMA X4500
GMA X4500

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.


3.1 770 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 340 votes

Rate GMA X4500 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.