Radeon RX 6850M XT vs GeForce GT 520M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 520M and Radeon RX 6850M XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6850M XT outperforms GT 520M by a whopping 5924% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1170 | 79 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.31 | 18.86 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | Navi 22 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $59.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 2321 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2581 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 17,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 165 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.800 | 413.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1152 TFLOPS | 13.21 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 64 |
| TMUs | 8 | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 384.0 GB/s |
| 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| 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.
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.
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.
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
−5525%
| 450−500
+5525%
|
| Full HD | 12
−1058%
| 139
+1058%
|
| 1200p | 7
−5614%
| 400−450
+5614%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−8600%
| 87
+8600%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−6600%
| 67
+6600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.00 | no data |
| 1440p | 59.99 | no data |
| 4K | 59.99 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1533%
|
95−100
+1533%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−5233%
|
160
+5233%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1533%
|
95−100
+1533%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2167%
|
68
+2167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−5840%
|
297
+5840%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−1620%
|
85−90
+1620%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1533%
|
95−100
+1533%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1667%
|
53
+1667%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−389%
|
44
+389%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−9350%
|
180−190
+9350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−5080%
|
259
+5080%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−2000%
|
210−220
+2000%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−1620%
|
85−90
+1620%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−2633%
|
160−170
+2633%
|
| World of Tanks | 18−20
−1368%
|
270−280
+1368%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1533%
|
95−100
+1533%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1367%
|
44
+1367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−1067%
|
100−110
+1067%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−4440%
|
227
+4440%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−2000%
|
210−220
+2000%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−4275%
|
170−180
+4275%
|
| World of Tanks | 3−4
−9467%
|
280−290
+9467%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−833%
|
28
+833%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−3525%
|
140−150
+3525%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1975%
|
80−85
+1975%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−2920%
|
150−160
+2920%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−560%
|
99
+560%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−560%
|
99
+560%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−7400%
|
150−160
+7400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−560%
|
99
+560%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−5300%
|
50−55
+5300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−420%
|
78
+420%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−8100%
|
80−85
+8100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 126
+0%
|
126
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
This is how GT 520M and RX 6850M XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6850M XT is 5525% faster in 900p
- RX 6850M XT is 1058% faster in 1080p
- RX 6850M XT is 5614% faster in 1200p
- RX 6850M XT is 8600% faster in 1440p
- RX 6850M XT is 6600% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6850M XT is 9467% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6850M XT is ahead in 34 tests (53%)
- there's a draw in 30 tests (47%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.72 | 43.37 |
| Recency | 5 January 2011 | 4 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 165 Watt |
GT 520M has 1275% lower power consumption.
RX 6850M XT, on the other hand, has a 5923.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6850M XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
