Radeon HD 6470M vs GeForce GT 520
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 520 with Radeon HD 6470M, including specs and performance data.
GT 520 outperforms HD 6470M by a considerable 40% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1153 | 1216 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 1.96 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GF119 | Seymour |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 April 2011 (13 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $59 | $569.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GT 520 and HD 6470M have a nearly equal value for money.
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 | 160 |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 370 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 29 Watt | no data |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 102 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 6.480 | 5.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1555 TFLOPS | 0.224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 4 |
| TMUs | 8 | 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).
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Height | 2.7" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB (DDR3) | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz (DDR3) | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s |
| 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) | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
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.
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 | 14−16
+40%
| 10
−40%
|
| Full HD | 16−18
+33.3%
| 12
−33.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.69
+1188%
| 47.50
−1188%
|
- GT 520 has 1188% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how GT 520 and HD 6470M compete in popular games:
- GT 520 is 40% faster in 900p
- GT 520 is 33% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 32 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.80 | 0.57 |
| Recency | 13 April 2011 | 4 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB (DDR3) | 512 MB |
GT 520 has a 40.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce GT 520 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6470M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 520 is a desktop card while Radeon HD 6470M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
