Qualcomm Adreno 680 vs GeForce GT 520M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 520M and Qualcomm Adreno 680, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 520M
2011
1 GB DDR3, 12 Watt
0.74

Qualcomm Adreno 680 outperforms GT 520M by a whopping 195% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1161860
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency4.2321.35
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)no data
GPU code nameGF108no data
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date5 January 2011 (13 years ago)6 December 2018 (6 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 cores48no data
Core clock speed600 MHzno data
Number of transistors585 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt7 Watt
Texture fill rate4.800no data
Floating-point processing power0.1152 TFLOPSno data
ROPs4no data
TMUs8no data

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 x16no data
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 typeDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount1 GBno data
Memory bus width64 Bitno data
Memory clock speed800 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependentno 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.

DirectX12 API12
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/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.

GT 520M 0.74
Qualcomm Adreno 680 2.18
+195%

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
Qualcomm Adreno 680 839
+194%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GT 520M 502
Qualcomm Adreno 680 1936
+286%

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
−163%
21−24
+163%
Full HD12
−192%
35−40
+192%
1200p7
−157%
18−21
+157%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%
Hitman 3 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−90.9%
21−24
+90.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 7−8
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−22.6%
35−40
+22.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%
Hitman 3 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−90.9%
21−24
+90.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 7−8
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−40%
14−16
+40%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−22.6%
35−40
+22.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Hitman 3 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−90.9%
21−24
+90.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−40%
14−16
+40%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−22.6%
35−40
+22.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 7−8

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 4−5
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 2−3
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Hitman 3 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 2−3

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

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

  • Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 163% faster in 900p
  • Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 192% faster in 1080p
  • Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 157% faster in 1200p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Qualcomm Adreno 680 is ahead in 34 tests (64%)
  • there's a draw in 19 tests (36%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.74 2.18
Recency 5 January 2011 6 December 2018
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 7 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 680 has a 194.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 71.4% lower power consumption.

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


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
Qualcomm Adreno 680
Adreno 680

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
3.4 38 votes

Rate Qualcomm Adreno 680 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.