Iris Xe Graphics MAX vs GeForce GT 520M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 520M with Iris Xe Graphics MAX, including specs and performance data.

GT 520M
2011
1 GB DDR3, 12 Watt
0.74

Iris Xe Graphics MAX outperforms GT 520M by a whopping 592% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1161623
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency4.2314.04
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code nameGF108DG1
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date5 January 2011 (13 years ago)31 October 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$59.99 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 cores48768
Core clock speed600 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data1650 MHz
Number of transistors585 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate4.80079.20
Floating-point processing power0.1152 TFLOPS2.534 TFLOPS
ROPs424
TMUs848

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 4.0 x4
Widthno dataIGP
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 typeDDR3LPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz4.3 GB/s
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/s68.26 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs

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.

DirectX12 API12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.2
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 520M 0.74
Iris Xe Graphics MAX 5.12
+592%

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 520M 285
Iris Xe Graphics MAX 1971
+592%

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:

900p8
−588%
55−60
+588%
Full HD12
−567%
80−85
+567%
1200p7
−543%
45−50
+543%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−500%
30−33
+500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Hitman 3 5−6
−500%
30−33
+500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−582%
75−80
+582%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−567%
40−45
+567%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−577%
210−220
+577%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−500%
30−33
+500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Hitman 3 5−6
−500%
30−33
+500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−582%
75−80
+582%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−567%
40−45
+567%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−550%
65−70
+550%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−577%
210−220
+577%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−500%
30−33
+500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Hitman 3 5−6
−500%
30−33
+500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−582%
75−80
+582%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−567%
40−45
+567%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−550%
65−70
+550%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−577%
210−220
+577%

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
−500%
6−7
+500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Hitman 3 6−7
−567%
40−45
+567%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−500%
12−14
+500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−500%
12−14
+500%

This is how GT 520M and Iris Xe Graphics MAX compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics MAX is 588% faster in 900p
  • Iris Xe Graphics MAX is 567% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe Graphics MAX is 543% faster in 1200p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.74 5.12
Recency 5 January 2011 31 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 25 Watt

GT 520M has 108.3% lower power consumption.

Iris Xe Graphics MAX, on the other hand, has a 591.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Xe Graphics MAX is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 520M is a notebook card while Iris Xe Graphics MAX is a desktop 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 GT 520M
GeForce GT 520M
Intel Iris Xe Graphics MAX
Iris Xe Graphics MAX

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.


3 411 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 211 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics MAX 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.