Radeon 680M vs GeForce GT 520

Place in the ranking	1140	336
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	no data
Power efficiency	1.93	22.12
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GF119	Rembrandt+
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	13 April 2011 (13 years ago)	3 January 2023 (1 year 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 cores	48	768
Core clock speed	810 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2200 MHz
Number of transistors	292 million	13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	29 Watt	50 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	102 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	6.480	105.6
Floating-point processing power	0.1555 TFLOPS	3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	32
TMUs	8	48
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	12

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	16x PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	145 mm	no data
Height	2.7" (6.9 cm)	no data
Width	1-slot	IGP
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	DDR3	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB (DDR3)	System Shared
Memory bus width	64 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	900 MHz (DDR3)	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	no data
Shared memory	no 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 Connectors	Dual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional)	Portable Device Dependent
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.2	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
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.

GT 520 0.81

Radeon 680M 15.98
+1873%

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.

GT 520 311

Radeon 680M 6166
+1883%

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.

GT 520 380

Radeon 680M 6865
+1707%

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	1−2 −3600%	37 +3600%
1440p	0−1	17
4K	0−1	11

Cost per frame, $

1080p

59.00

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	38 +0%	38 +0%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	29 +0%	29 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	32 +0%	32 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	31 +0%	31 +0%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	21 +0%	21 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	30 +0%	30 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	47 +0%	47 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	27 +0%	27 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	17 +0%	17 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	27 +0%	27 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	43 +0%	43 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40 +0%	40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24 +0%	24 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18 +0%	18 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

45−50

+0%

45−50

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +0%	11 +0%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Hitman 3	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27 +0%	27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	17 +0%	17 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30

+0%

27−30

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13 +0%	13 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4 +0%	4 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 +0%	14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

This is how GT 520 and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

Radeon 680M is 3600% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.81	15.98
Recency	13 April 2011	3 January 2023
Chip lithography	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	29 Watt	50 Watt

GT 520 has 72.4% lower power consumption.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has a 1872.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520 in performance tests.

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