GeForce GT 520 vs Radeon R7 (Carrizo)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 (Carrizo) with GeForce GT 520, including specs and performance data.

R7 (Carrizo)
2015
12 Watt
2.00
+147%

R7 (Carrizo) outperforms GT 520 by a whopping 147% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8861140
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency3.961.93
ArchitectureGCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameCarrizoGF119
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date4 June 2015 (9 years ago)13 April 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$59

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 cores51248
Core clock speedno data810 MHz
Boost clock speed800 MHzno data
Number of transistors2410 Million292 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12-35 Watt29 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data102 °C
Texture fill rateno data6.480
Floating-point processing powerno data0.1555 TFLOPS
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportno data16x PCI-E 2.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Heightno data2.7" (6.9 cm)
Widthno data1-slot
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 typeno dataDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB (DDR3)
Memory bus width64/128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data900 MHz (DDR3)
Memory bandwidthno data14.4 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 Connectorsno dataDual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional)
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.2
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-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.

R7 (Carrizo) 2.00
+147%
GT 520 0.81

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.

R7 (Carrizo) 1137
+199%
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 HD10
+150%
4−5
−150%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data14.75

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Hitman 3 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+150%
14−16
−150%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Hitman 3 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+180%
5−6
−180%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+150%
14−16
−150%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Hitman 3 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+150%
14−16
−150%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

This is how R7 (Carrizo) and GT 520 compete in popular games:

  • R7 (Carrizo) is 150% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.00 0.81
Recency 4 June 2015 13 April 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 29 Watt

R7 (Carrizo) has a 146.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 141.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 (Carrizo) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 (Carrizo) 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.

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 R7 (Carrizo)
Radeon R7 (Carrizo)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 520
GeForce GT 520

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.


3.4 7 votes

Rate Radeon R7 (Carrizo) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 756 votes

Rate GeForce GT 520 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.