GeForce GT 520 vs Radeon HD 8970M

Place in the ranking	453	1152
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	6.93	1.95
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Neptune	GF119
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	14 May 2013 (11 years ago)	13 April 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$59

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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	1280	48
Core clock speed	850 MHz	810 MHz
Boost clock speed	900 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2,800 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	29 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	102 °C
Texture fill rate	72.00	6.480
Floating-point processing power	2.304 TFLOPS	0.1555 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	4
TMUs	80	8

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	large	no data
Bus support	no data	16x PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Height	no data	2.7" (6.9 cm)
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB (DDR3)
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1200 MHz	900 MHz (DDR3)
Memory bandwidth	153.6 GB/s	14.4 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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	Dual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional)
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.2
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/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 8970M 9.67
+1124%

GT 520 0.79

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 8970M 3876
+1127%

GT 520 316

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.

HD 8970M 5039
+1226%

GT 520 380

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

51
+1175%

4−5

−1175%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

14.75

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +1233%	3−4 −1233%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
Valorant	35−40 +1200%	3−4 −1200%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Dota 2	26 +1200%	2−3 −1200%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +1267%	3−4 −1267%
Fortnite	55−60 +1375%	4−5 −1375%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +1233%	3−4 −1233%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Grand Theft Auto V	39 +1200%	3−4 −1200%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 +1200%	6−7 −1200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%
Valorant	35−40 +1200%	3−4 −1200%
World of Tanks	148 +1133%	12−14 −1133%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Dota 2	35−40 +1700%	2−3 −1700%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +1267%	3−4 −1267%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +1233%	3−4 −1233%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 +1200%	6−7 −1200%
Valorant	35−40 +1200%	3−4 −1200%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +1467%	3−4 −1467%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10	0−1
World of Tanks	70−75 +1340%	5−6 −1340%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9	0−1
Far Cry 5	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Forza Horizon 5	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Valorant	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Dota 2	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Grand Theft Auto V	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Dota 2	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Far Cry 5	12−14	0−1
Fortnite	10−12	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Forza Horizon 5	7−8	0−1
Valorant	10−11	0−1

This is how HD 8970M and GT 520 compete in popular games:

HD 8970M is 1175% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.67	0.79
Recency	14 May 2013	13 April 2011
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB (DDR3)
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	29 Watt

HD 8970M has a 1124.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 520, on the other hand, has 244.8% lower power consumption.

The Radeon HD 8970M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8970M is a notebook card while GeForce GT 520 is a desktop one.

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