Quadro RTX 6000 vs Radeon 520

Place in the ranking	878	65
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	5.27
Power efficiency	2.85	13.02
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Banks	TU102
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	18 April 2017 (7 years ago)	13 August 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$6,299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	320	4608
Core clock speed	1030 MHz	1440 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1770 MHz
Number of transistors	690 million	18,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	260 Watt
Texture fill rate	20.60	509.8
Floating-point processing power	0.6592 TFLOPS	16.31 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	96
TMUs	20	288
Tensor Cores	no data	576
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	72

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	24 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	1125 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	36 GB/s	672.0 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

4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	-	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.

Radeon 520 2.04

RTX 6000 48.56
+2280%

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.

Radeon 520 787

RTX 6000 18733
+2280%

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.

Radeon 520 5352

RTX 6000 148952
+2683%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Radeon 520 4434

RTX 6000 126987
+2764%

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

−2208%

300−350
+2208%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

21.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−2275%

95−100
+2275%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −2186%	160−170 +2186%
Battlefield 5	1−2 −2000%	21−24 +2000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −2100%	110−120 +2100%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −2275%	95−100 +2275%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −2233%	70−75 +2233%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −2100%	110−120 +2100%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −2275%	190−200 +2275%
Hitman 3	7−8 −2186%	160−170 +2186%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −2122%	400−450 +2122%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −2275%	95−100 +2275%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −2200%	230−240 +2200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −2261%	850−900 +2261%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −2186%	160−170 +2186%
Battlefield 5	1−2 −2000%	21−24 +2000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −2100%	110−120 +2100%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −2275%	95−100 +2275%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −2233%	70−75 +2233%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −2100%	110−120 +2100%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −2275%	190−200 +2275%
Hitman 3	7−8 −2186%	160−170 +2186%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −2122%	400−450 +2122%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −2275%	95−100 +2275%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −2200%	230−240 +2200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18 −2122%	400−450 +2122%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −2261%	850−900 +2261%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −2186%	160−170 +2186%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −2100%	110−120 +2100%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −2275%	95−100 +2275%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −2233%	70−75 +2233%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −2275%	190−200 +2275%
Hitman 3	7−8 −2186%	160−170 +2186%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −2122%	400−450 +2122%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −2200%	230−240 +2200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6 −2233%	140−150 +2233%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −2261%	850−900 +2261%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−2275%

95−100
+2275%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −2233%	70−75 +2233%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −2233%	70−75 +2233%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −2000%	21−24 +2000%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −2000%	21−24 +2000%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%
Hitman 3	7−8 −2186%	160−170 +2186%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 −2233%	140−150 +2233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −2000%	21−24 +2000%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12 −2264%	260−270 +2264%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
−2100%

110−120

+2100%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−2000%

21−24
+2000%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −2000%	21−24 +2000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −2000%	21−24 +2000%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −2000%	21−24 +2000%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−2233%

70−75
+2233%

This is how Radeon 520 and RTX 6000 compete in popular games:

RTX 6000 is 2208% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.04	48.56
Recency	18 April 2017	13 August 2018
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	24 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	260 Watt

Radeon 520 has 420% lower power consumption.

RTX 6000, on the other hand, has a 2280.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 520 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon 520 is a notebook card while Quadro RTX 6000 is a workstation one.

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