Radeon HD 7400G vs GeForce GT 520M

Place in the ranking	1153	1166
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	no data
Power efficiency	4.27	2.81
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)
GPU code name	GF108	Scrapper
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	5 January 2011 (13 years ago)	2 October 2012 (12 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 cores	48	192
Core clock speed	600 MHz	327 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	424 MHz
Number of transistors	585 million	1,303 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	17 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.800	5.088
Floating-point processing power	0.1152 TFLOPS	0.1628 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	4
TMUs	8	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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	IGP
Width	no data	IGP
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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	64 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	no 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 Connectors

Portable Device Dependent

No 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.

DirectX	12 API	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.0
OpenGL	4.5	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. 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
+7.2%

HD 7400G 0.69

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 284
+6.4%

HD 7400G 267

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
+21%

HD 7400G 415

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	8 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Full HD	12 +20%	10−12 −20%
1200p	7 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

5.00

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

1440p
High Preset

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

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%