Quadro P520 vs Radeon Pro WX 4150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro WX 4150 and Quadro P520, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro WX 4150 outperforms Quadro P520 by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 556 | 605 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Polaris (2016−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 11 | GP108 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 March 2017 (7 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 896 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1303 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1053 MHz | 1493 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 58.97 | 35.83 |
| Floating-point performance | 1.887 gflops | 1.147 gflops |
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 | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7000 MHz | 6000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 48.06 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 | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
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 | 24−27
+14.3%
| 21
−14.3%
|
| 4K | 21−24
+10.5%
| 19
−10.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+28.6%
|
35−40
−28.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+17.6%
|
30−35
−17.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+21.1%
|
18−20
−21.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+10.4%
|
45−50
−10.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+28.6%
|
35−40
−28.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+17.6%
|
30−35
−17.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+21.1%
|
18−20
−21.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+10.4%
|
45−50
−10.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+28.6%
|
35−40
−28.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+17.6%
|
30−35
−17.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+21.1%
|
18−20
−21.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+90.9%
|
11
−90.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+10.4%
|
45−50
−10.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+64.3%
|
14−16
−64.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+26.5%
|
30−35
−26.5%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
This is how Pro WX 4150 and Quadro P520 compete in popular games:
- Pro WX 4150 is 14% faster in 1080p
- Pro WX 4150 is 11% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro WX 4150 is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro WX 4150 is ahead in 66 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.78 | 5.45 |
| Recency | 1 March 2017 | 27 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 18 Watt |
Pro WX 4150 has a 24.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro P520, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 177.8% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro WX 4150 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P520 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
