GeForce GT 520MX vs GTS 160M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTS 160M and GeForce GT 520MX, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTS 160M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 60 Watt
1.76
+141%

GTS 160M outperforms GT 520MX by a whopping 141% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9231160
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.042.54
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameG94GF119
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 March 2009 (15 years ago)30 May 2011 (13 years ago)

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 cores6448
Core clock speed600 MHz900 MHz
Number of transistors505 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)60 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate19.207.200
Floating-point processing power0.192 TFLOPS0.1728 TFLOPS
Gigaflops288no data
ROPs164
TMUs328

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
SLI options2-way-
MXM TypeMXM 3.0 Type-Bno 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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 800 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth51 GB/s14.4 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 ConnectorsVGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVINo outputs
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus-+
Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 API
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL2.14.5
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/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.

GTS 160M 1.76
+141%
GT 520MX 0.73

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.

GTS 160M 678
+140%
GT 520MX 283

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTS 160M 3965
+51.4%
GT 520MX 2620

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+9.7%
30−35
−9.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+9.7%
30−35
−9.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+9.7%
30−35
−9.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTS 160M is 350% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTS 160M is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.76 0.73
Recency 3 March 2009 30 May 2011
Chip lithography 65 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 60 Watt 20 Watt

GTS 160M has a 141.1% higher aggregate performance score.

GT 520MX, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTS 160M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520MX 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 GTS 160M
GeForce GTS 160M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX
GeForce GT 520MX

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.


1 4 votes

Rate GeForce GTS 160M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 220 votes

Rate GeForce GT 520MX 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.