Quadro P520 vs GeForce GT 710
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 710 with Quadro P520, including specs and performance data.
P520 outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 234% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 964 | 621 |
| Place by popularity | 69 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.87 | 20.79 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | GP108 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 27 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 23 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $34.99 | 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 | 192 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 1303 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1493 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 15.26 | 35.83 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3663 TFLOPS | 1.147 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 16 | 24 |
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 |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Height | 2.713" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1.8 GB/s | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 48.06 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 | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 3 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| PureVideo | + | - |
| PhysX | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
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 Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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:
| Full HD | 8
−163%
| 21
+163%
|
| 1440p | 3
−233%
| 10−12
+233%
|
| 4K | 7
−186%
| 20
+186%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.37 | no data |
| 1440p | 11.66 | no data |
| 4K | 5.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5
−300%
|
20
+300%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−188%
|
21−24
+188%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5
−120%
|
10−12
+120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−90%
|
18−20
+90%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−72.2%
|
60−65
+72.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−164%
|
85−90
+164%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
−200%
|
60
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4
−350%
|
18
+350%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−188%
|
21−24
+188%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
−100%
|
6
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−90%
|
18−20
+90%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
−280%
|
19
+280%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−72.2%
|
60−65
+72.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
−200%
|
54
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4
−300%
|
16
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−188%
|
21−24
+188%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−90%
|
18−20
+90%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−267%
|
11
+267%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−72.2%
|
60−65
+72.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−290%
|
35−40
+290%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−240%
|
30−35
+240%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−533%
|
55−60
+533%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−225%
|
24−27
+225%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 7
−229%
|
23
+229%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GT 710 and Quadro P520 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P520 is 163% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P520 is 233% faster in 1440p
- Quadro P520 is 186% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P520 is 1000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P520 is ahead in 55 tests (89%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (11%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.62 | 5.41 |
| Recency | 27 March 2014 | 23 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 18 Watt |
Quadro P520 has a 234% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 5.6% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P520 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 710 is a desktop card while Quadro P520 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
