GeForce GT 520 vs UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) with GeForce GT 520, including specs and performance data.

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
2021
15 Watt
14.07
+1616%

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) outperforms GT 520 by a whopping 1616% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3711146
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency64.571.95
Architectureno dataFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameRocket Lake GT1GF119
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date30 March 2021 (3 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 coresno data48
Core clock speedno data810 MHz
Number of transistorsno data292 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 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).

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 widthno data64 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.

DirectXno data12 (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.

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) 14.07
+1616%
GT 520 0.82

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.

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) 1613
+324%
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 HD120−1

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Elden Ring 40−45
+2050%
2−3
−2050%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+2200%
2−3
−2200%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Forza Horizon 4 14 0−1
Metro Exodus 10 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+1650%
2−3
−1650%
Valorant 55−60
+1767%
3−4
−1767%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+2200%
2−3
−2200%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Dota 2 13 0−1
Elden Ring 40−45
+2050%
2−3
−2050%
Far Cry 5 18
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Fortnite 75−80
+1875%
4−5
−1875%
Forza Horizon 4 12 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 6 0−1
Metro Exodus 7 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+1940%
5−6
−1940%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+1650%
2−3
−1650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+2050%
2−3
−2050%
Valorant 55−60
+1767%
3−4
−1767%
World of Tanks 180−190
+1760%
10−11
−1760%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+2200%
2−3
−2200%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Dota 2 25
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+1667%
3−4
−1667%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+1800%
3−4
−1800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+1940%
5−6
−1940%
Valorant 55−60
+1767%
3−4
−1767%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Elden Ring 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+1850%
6−7
−1850%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14 0−1
World of Tanks 95−100
+1880%
5−6
−1880%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11 0−1
Far Cry 5 30−35
+3200%
1−2
−3200%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+3300%
1−2
−3300%
Metro Exodus 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Valorant 35−40
+1650%
2−3
−1650%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10 0−1
Dota 2 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Elden Ring 9−10 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Metro Exodus 9−10 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+1950%
2−3
−1950%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Dota 2 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Fortnite 16−18 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Valorant 14−16 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.07 0.82
Recency 30 March 2021 13 April 2011
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 29 Watt

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) has a 1615.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 93.3% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520 in performance tests.

Be aware that UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) 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.


Intel UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 520
GeForce GT 520

Other comparisons

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.


3.8 114 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 777 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.