HD Graphics 520 vs Quadro FX 3800M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3800M with HD Graphics 520, including specs and performance data.

FX 3800M
2008
1 GB GDDR3, 100 Watt
1.49

HD Graphics 520 outperforms FX 3800M by a considerable 45% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking984868
Place by popularitynot in top-10047
Power efficiency1.039.93
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Generation 9.0 (2015−2016)
GPU code nameG92Skylake GT2
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date14 August 2008 (16 years ago)1 September 2015 (9 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 cores128192
Core clock speed675 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data900 MHz
Number of transistors754 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm14 nm+
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate43.2021.60
Floating-point processing power0.4224 TFLOPS0.3456 TFLOPS
ROPs163
TMUs6424

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
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)Ring Bus

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 typeGDDR3DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4
Maximum RAM amount1 GB32 GB
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1000 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth64 GB/sno data
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 outputsPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/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.

FX 3800M 1.49
HD Graphics 520 2.16
+45%

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.

FX 3800M 574
HD Graphics 520 831
+44.8%

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.

FX 3800M 6779
+18.5%
HD Graphics 520 5722

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:

900p12−14
−66.7%
20
+66.7%
Full HD34
+240%
10
−240%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−22.2%
10−12
+22.2%
Metro Exodus 0−1 3−4
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Dota 2 2−3
−450%
11
+450%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Fortnite 7−8
−57.1%
10−12
+57.1%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−22.2%
10−12
+22.2%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
−50%
3
+50%
Metro Exodus 0−1 3−4
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+133%
3
−133%
World of Tanks 30−35
+3.3%
30
−3.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Dota 2 2−3
−1000%
22
+1000%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−22.2%
10−12
+22.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−66.7%
14−16
+66.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 1−2
World of Tanks 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 1−2
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Valorant 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1

This is how FX 3800M and HD Graphics 520 compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 520 is 67% faster in 900p
  • FX 3800M is 240% faster in 1080p

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the FX 3800M is 133% faster.
  • in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD Graphics 520 is 1000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FX 3800M is ahead in 2 tests (5%)
  • HD Graphics 520 is ahead in 34 tests (77%)
  • there's a draw in 8 tests (18%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.49 2.16
Recency 14 August 2008 1 September 2015
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 32 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 15 Watt

HD Graphics 520 has a 45% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 566.7% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 520 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3800M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3800M is a mobile workstation card while HD Graphics 520 is a mobile workstation one.


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 Quadro FX 3800M
Quadro FX 3800M
Intel HD Graphics 520
HD Graphics 520

Other comparisons

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 6 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3800M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 3204 votes

Rate HD Graphics 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.