GeForce GT 520M vs Radeon R7 370

Place in the ranking	407	1156
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.44	0.01
Power efficiency	7.41	4.30
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Trinidad	GF108
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	18 June 2015 (9 years ago)	5 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	$59.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 370 has 64300% better value for money than GT 520M.

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	1024	48
Core clock speed	no data	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	975 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2,800 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	110 Watt	12 Watt
Texture fill rate	62.40	4.800
Floating-point processing power	1.997 TFLOPS	0.1152 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	4
TMUs	64	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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	152 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	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
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	975 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	179.2 GB/s	12.8 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 Connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	Portable Device Dependent
Eyefinity	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no data
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
VCE	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data
Optimus	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 API
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
Mantle	+	-
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.

R7 370 11.69
+1480%

GT 520M 0.74

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.

R7 370 4510
+1482%

GT 520M 285

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.

R7 370 8519
+1597%

GT 520M 502

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.

R7 370 28723
+1160%

GT 520M 2280

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:

900p	120−130 +1400%	8 −1400%
Full HD	45 +275%	12 −275%
1200p	110−120 +1471%	7 −1471%
1440p	62 +1967%	3−4 −1967%
4K	20 +1900%	1−2 −1900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.31	5.00
1440p	2.40	20.00
4K	7.45	59.99

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

18−20
+500%

3−4

−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +440%	5−6 −440%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Battlefield 5	35−40 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +3100%	1−2 −3100%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +1850%	4−5 −1850%
Hitman 3	21−24 +340%	5−6 −340%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +464%	10−12 −464%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +1800%	2−3 −1800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +533%	6−7 −533%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +119%	30−35 −119%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +440%	5−6 −440%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Battlefield 5	35−40 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +3100%	1−2 −3100%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +1850%	4−5 −1850%
Hitman 3	21−24 +340%	5−6 −340%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +464%	10−12 −464%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +1800%	2−3 −1800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +533%	6−7 −533%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	89 +790%	10−11 −790%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +119%	30−35 −119%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +440%	5−6 −440%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +1850%	4−5 −1850%
Hitman 3	21−24 +340%	5−6 −340%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +464%	10−12 −464%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +533%	6−7 −533%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	22 +120%	10−11 −120%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +119%	30−35 −119%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +1767%	3−4 −1767%
Hitman 3	14−16 +150%	6−7 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +3550%	2−3 −3550%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20
+533%

3−4

−533%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +1700%	3−4 −1700%
Metro Exodus	10−11	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	6−7	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	14−16	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12
+450%

2−3

−450%

This is how R7 370 and GT 520M compete in popular games:

R7 370 is 1400% faster in 900p
R7 370 is 275% faster in 1080p
R7 370 is 1471% faster in 1200p
R7 370 is 1967% faster in 1440p
R7 370 is 1900% faster in 4K

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R7 370 is 3550% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, R7 370 surpassed GT 520M in all 35 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	11.69	0.74
Recency	18 June 2015	5 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	110 Watt	12 Watt

R7 370 has a 1479.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 520M, on the other hand, has 816.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 370 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 370 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.