Radeon 520 vs GeForce GTX 980M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 980M and Radeon 520, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 980M
2014
8 GB GDDR5
19.09
+836%

GTX 980M outperforms 520 by a whopping 836% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking291882
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency13.092.80
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameGM204Banks
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date7 October 2014 (10 years ago)18 April 2017 (7 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 cores1536320
Core clock speed1038 MHz1030 MHz
Boost clock speed1127 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,200 million690 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown50 Watt
Texture fill rate51.8420.60
Floating-point processing power1.659 TFLOPS0.6592 TFLOPS
ROPs648
TMUs9620

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 Express 3.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed2500 MHz1125 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s36 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI+-
G-SYNC support+-

Supported technologies

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

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
BatteryBoost+-
Ansel+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_1)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.11.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
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.

GTX 980M 19.09
+836%
Radeon 520 2.04

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.

GTX 980M 7357
+835%
Radeon 520 787

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.

GTX 980M 12517
+521%
Radeon 520 2017

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.

GTX 980M 31944
+507%
Radeon 520 5266

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.

GTX 980M 9682
+634%
Radeon 520 1319

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.

GTX 980M 65241
+676%
Radeon 520 8413

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.

GTX 980M 23749
+346%
Radeon 520 5324

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.

GTX 980M 327632
+323%
Radeon 520 77543

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GTX 980M 2805
+607%
Radeon 520 397

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.

GTX 980M 14455
+226%
Radeon 520 4434

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

GTX 980M 111
+822%
Radeon 520 12

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:

900p173
+861%
18−20
−861%
Full HD70
+400%
14
−400%
1440p36
+1100%
3−4
−1100%
4K27
+1250%
2−3
−1250%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+650%
4−5
−650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 51
+629%
7−8
−629%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+967%
3−4
−967%
Battlefield 5 67
+6600%
1−2
−6600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+650%
4−5
−650%
Far Cry 5 62
+1967%
3−4
−1967%
Far Cry New Dawn 59
+1080%
5−6
−1080%
Forza Horizon 4 196
+2350%
8−9
−2350%
Hitman 3 35−40
+429%
7−8
−429%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+411%
18−20
−411%
Metro Exodus 65
+983%
6−7
−983%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+1175%
4−5
−1175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 100
+900%
10−11
−900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+147%
35−40
−147%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 68
+871%
7−8
−871%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+967%
3−4
−967%
Battlefield 5 57
+5600%
1−2
−5600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+650%
4−5
−650%
Far Cry 5 52
+1633%
3−4
−1633%
Far Cry New Dawn 47
+840%
5−6
−840%
Forza Horizon 4 191
+2288%
8−9
−2288%
Hitman 3 35−40
+429%
7−8
−429%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+411%
18−20
−411%
Metro Exodus 55
+1000%
5−6
−1000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+1175%
4−5
−1175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+530%
10−11
−530%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 121
+572%
18
−572%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+147%
35−40
−147%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 26
+271%
7−8
−271%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+967%
3−4
−967%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+650%
4−5
−650%
Far Cry 5 38
+1167%
3−4
−1167%
Forza Horizon 4 47
+488%
8−9
−488%
Hitman 3 35−40
+429%
7−8
−429%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+411%
18−20
−411%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+530%
10−11
−530%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33
+450%
6
−450%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+147%
35−40
−147%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+1175%
4−5
−1175%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 33
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 32
+967%
3−4
−967%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20
+900%
2−3
−900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Far Cry 5 24
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
Forza Horizon 4 134
+857%
14−16
−857%
Hitman 3 21−24
+214%
7−8
−214%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+550%
6−7
−550%
Metro Exodus 38
+850%
4−5
−850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+850%
4−5
−850%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+927%
10−12
−927%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+520%
5−6
−520%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Far Cry New Dawn 17
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Hitman 3 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100
+880%
10−11
−880%
Metro Exodus 18
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+1000%
2−3
−1000%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12
+500%
2−3
−500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Forza Horizon 4 26
+1200%
2−3
−1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%

This is how GTX 980M and Radeon 520 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 980M is 861% faster in 900p
  • GTX 980M is 400% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 980M is 1100% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 980M is 1250% faster in 4K

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

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 980M is 6600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 980M surpassed Radeon 520 in all 54 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.09 2.04
Recency 7 October 2014 18 April 2017
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 2 GB

GTX 980M has a 835.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Radeon 520, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years.

The GeForce GTX 980M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 520 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 GTX 980M
GeForce GTX 980M
AMD Radeon 520
Radeon 520

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.


4.2 336 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 980M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 336 votes

Rate Radeon 520 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.