AMD Radeon Vega 8 Embedded vs NVIDIA Quadro M520 Mobile
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Vega 8 Embedded and NVIDIA Quadro M520 Mobile videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Embedded
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- Around 67% lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 25 Watt
- Around 83% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 410 vs 224
- Around 43% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 8763 vs 6135
- Around 44% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2433 vs 1692
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 6729 vs 3011
- Around 44% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2433 vs 1692
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 6729 vs 3011
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 13 February 2018 vs 11 January 2017 |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 25 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 410 vs 224 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8763 vs 6135 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2433 vs 1692 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 6729 vs 3011 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2433 vs 1692 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 6729 vs 3011 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M520 Mobile
- 3.5x more core clock speed: 1041 MHz vs 300 MHz
- Around 19% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1889 vs 1581
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3079 vs 1514
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3079 vs 1514
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1041 MHz vs 300 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1889 vs 1581 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3079 vs 1514 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3079 vs 1514 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Vega 8 Embedded
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro M520 Mobile
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon Vega 8 Embedded | NVIDIA Quadro M520 Mobile |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1581 | 1889 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 410 | 224 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8763 | 6135 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 25.891 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 365.4 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.104 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 37.17 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 132.07 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1514 | 3079 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2433 | 1692 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 6729 | 3011 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1514 | 3079 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2433 | 1692 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 6729 | 3011 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 705 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon Vega 8 Embedded | NVIDIA Quadro M520 Mobile | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Maxwell |
Code name | Owl | GM108 |
Launch date | 13 February 2018 | 11 January 2017 |
Place in performance rating | 957 | 958 |
Type | Desktop | Workstation |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1300 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1041 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 25 Watt |
Transistor count | 4,940 million | |
Floating-point performance | 799.5 gflops | |
Pipelines | 384 | |
Texture fill rate | 16.66 GTexel / s | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | IGP | MXM-A (3.0) |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | |
Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB / s | |
Memory bus width | 64 Bit | |
Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | |
Memory type | GDDR5 |