GeForce GT 520M vs Radeon HD 8280

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 8280 with GeForce GT 520M, including specs and performance data.

HD 8280
2013
15 Watt
0.67

GT 520M outperforms HD 8280 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11771158
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency3.114.30
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameKalindiGF108
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date18 September 2013 (11 years ago)5 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$59.99

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 cores12848
Core clock speed450 MHz600 MHz
Number of transistors1,178 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt12 Watt
Texture fill rate3.6004.800
Floating-point processing power0.1152 TFLOPS0.1152 TFLOPS
ROPs44
TMUs88

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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 2.0 x16
WidthIGPno data
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem SharedDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared1 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data12.8 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 outputsPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 API
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/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.

HD 8280 0.67
GT 520M 0.74
+10.4%

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.

HD 8280 260
GT 520M 285
+9.6%

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.

HD 8280 496
GT 520M 502
+1.2%

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:

900p7−8
−14.3%
8
+14.3%
Full HD10−12
−20%
12
+20%
1200p6−7
−16.7%
7
+16.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data5.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−3.3%
30−35
+3.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−3.3%
30−35
+3.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−3.3%
30−35
+3.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

This is how HD 8280 and GT 520M compete in popular games:

  • GT 520M is 14% faster in 900p
  • GT 520M is 20% faster in 1080p
  • GT 520M is 17% faster in 1200p

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

  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 520M is 25% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 520M is ahead in 6 tests (17%)
  • there's a draw in 29 tests (83%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.67 0.74
Recency 18 September 2013 5 January 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 12 Watt

HD 8280 has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 520M, on the other hand, has a 10.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 25% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 520M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8280 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8280 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 520M is a notebook 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.


AMD Radeon HD 8280
Radeon HD 8280
NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
GeForce GT 520M

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.


2.2 14 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8280 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 406 votes

Rate GeForce GT 520M 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.