Quadro T1000 Mobile vs Quadro M520

Place in the ranking	630	317
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	13.43	23.48
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GM108	TU117
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	11 January 2017 (7 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 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 cores	384	768
Core clock speed	1041 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	1019 MHz	1455 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	16.66	69.84
Floating-point processing power	0.7995 TFLOPS	2.235 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	32
TMUs	16	48

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	medium sized	medium sized
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	40 GB/s	128.0 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

No outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
3D Stereo	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2.131
CUDA	5.0	7.5

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.

Quadro M520 4.85

T1000 Mobile 16.95
+249%

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.

Quadro M520 1872

T1000 Mobile 6540
+249%

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.

Quadro M520 2658

T1000 Mobile 11377
+328%

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.

Quadro M520 11278

T1000 Mobile 31509
+179%

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.

Quadro M520 2342

T1000 Mobile 8727
+273%

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.

Quadro M520 13394

T1000 Mobile 53629
+300%

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.

Quadro M520 166193

T1000 Mobile 375510
+126%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Quadro M520 614

T1000 Mobile 3261
+431%

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.

Quadro M520 28

T1000 Mobile 110
+295%

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	19 −211%	59 +211%
4K	13 −269%	48 +269%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9

−238%

27−30
+238%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −269%	48 +269%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −460%	27−30 +460%
Battlefield 5	12−14 −358%	55−60 +358%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 −382%	53 +382%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −238%	27−30 +238%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −390%	49 +390%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 −229%	45−50 +229%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −284%	119 +284%
Hitman 3	10−12 −191%	30−35 +191%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −163%	80−85 +163%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −655%	83 +655%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −415%	67 +415%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 −206%	55−60 +206%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −82.6%	80−85 +82.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −192%	35−40 +192%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −460%	27−30 +460%
Battlefield 5	12−14 −358%	55−60 +358%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 −327%	47 +327%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −238%	27−30 +238%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −310%	41 +310%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 −229%	45−50 +229%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −268%	114 +268%
Hitman 3	10−12 −191%	30−35 +191%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −163%	80−85 +163%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −473%	63 +473%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −300%	52 +300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 −206%	55−60 +206%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	41 +5.1%	35−40 −5.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −82.6%	80−85 +82.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −123%	29 +123%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −460%	27−30 +460%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 −191%	32 +191%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −238%	27−30 +238%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −210%	31 +210%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −248%	100−110 +248%
Hitman 3	10−12 −191%	30−35 +191%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −163%	80−85 +163%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 −206%	55−60 +206%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −94.4%	35 +94.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −82.6%	80−85 +82.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

−285%

50
+285%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 −267%	30−35 +267%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −271%	24−27 +271%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −325%	16−18 +325%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −233%	20−22 +233%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −810%	90−95 +810%
Hitman 3	9−10 −122%	20−22 +122%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −209%	30−35 +209%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −1450%	30−35 +1450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −375%	18−20 +375%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −229%	100−110 +229%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

−211%

27−30
+211%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −467%	16−18 +467%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −333%	12−14 +333%
Hitman 3	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 −1333%	85−90 +1333%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −750%	16−18 +750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −1600%	16−18 +1600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	3−4
Far Cry 5	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −475%	21−24 +475%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

−200%

14−16
+200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

18−20

+0%

18−20

+0%

This is how Quadro M520 and T1000 Mobile compete in popular games:

T1000 Mobile is 211% faster in 1080p
T1000 Mobile is 269% faster in 4K

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 Quadro M520 is 5% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the T1000 Mobile is 1600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro M520 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
T1000 Mobile is ahead in 67 tests (94%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (4%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.85	16.95
Recency	11 January 2017	27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	50 Watt

Quadro M520 has 100% lower power consumption.

T1000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 249.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T1000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M520 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.