Radeon Vega 3 Efficient vs GeForce GT 520M
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1156 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.30 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | Raven |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 26 May 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $59.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 4,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.800 | 12.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1152 TFLOPS | 0.384 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 | 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 | 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 | - | 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 | 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 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 5 January 2011 | 26 May 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 15 Watt |
GT 520M has 25% lower power consumption.
Vega 3 Efficient, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between GeForce GT 520M and Radeon Vega 3 Efficient. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that GeForce GT 520M is a notebook card while Radeon Vega 3 Efficient is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
