NVIDIA GeForce 410M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 410M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. 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 - 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), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 410M
- Around 71% higher core clock speed: 1150 MHz vs 672 MHz
- Around 69% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 130 vs 77
- Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 86.519 vs 83.376
- Around 41% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 7.048 vs 4.992
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1150 MHz vs 672 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 130 vs 77 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 86.519 vs 83.376 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 7.048 vs 4.992 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
- Around 28% higher texture fill rate: 5.9 billion / sec vs 4.6 GTexel / s
- Around 17% better floating-point performance: 129.02 gflops vs 110.4 gflops
- Around 7% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 286 vs 267
- Around 31% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 1313 vs 1003
- Around 14% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 3.237 vs 2.846
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 536 vs 494
- Around 49% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1731 vs 1163
- Around 52% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2380 vs 1570
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 536 vs 494
- Around 49% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1731 vs 1163
- Around 52% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2380 vs 1570
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 5.9 billion / sec vs 4.6 GTexel / s |
| Floating-point performance | 129.02 gflops vs 110.4 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 286 vs 267 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1313 vs 1003 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 3.237 vs 2.846 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 536 vs 494 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1731 vs 1163 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2380 vs 1570 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 536 vs 494 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1731 vs 1163 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2380 vs 1570 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 410M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
| 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 - 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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce 410M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 267 | 286 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 130 | 77 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1003 | 1313 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 2.846 | 3.237 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 86.519 | 83.376 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 7.048 | 4.992 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 494 | 536 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1163 | 1731 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1570 | 2380 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 494 | 536 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1163 | 1731 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1570 | 2380 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.26 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 5.92 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce 410M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Fermi |
| Code name | GF119 | GF108 |
| Launch date | 5 January 2011 | 5 January 2011 |
| Place in performance rating | 1557 | 1558 |
| Type | Laptop | Laptop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $59.99 | |
| Price now | $59.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 7.54 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 1150 MHz | 672 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 48 | 48 |
| Floating-point performance | 110.4 gflops | 129.02 gflops |
| Gigaflops | 73 | |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 48 | 48 |
| Texture fill rate | 4.6 GTexel / s | 5.9 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 12 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Transistor count | 292 million | 585 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI | No outputs |
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 API |
| OpenGL | 1 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Memory |
||
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB / s | 12.8 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory type | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| Power management | 8.0 | |
| DirectCompute | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Verde Drivers | ||


