NVIDIA GeForce GT 520 vs Intel HD Graphics 3000
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 520 and Intel HD Graphics 3000 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 - 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 month(s) later
- Around 91% higher core clock speed: 1620 MHz vs 850 MHz
- 3.8x more texture fill rate: 6.5 billion / sec vs 1.7 GTexel / s
- 4x more pipelines: 48 vs 12
- 7.6x better floating-point performance: 155.52 gflops vs 20.4 gflops
- Around 22% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 319 vs 261
- 3.9x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 136 vs 35
- 14.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1455 vs 101
- 14.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1455 vs 101
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 13 April 2011 vs 1 February 2011 |
| Core clock speed | 1620 MHz vs 850 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 6.5 billion / sec vs 1.7 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 48 vs 12 |
| Floating-point performance | 155.52 gflops vs 20.4 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 319 vs 261 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 136 vs 35 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1455 vs 101 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1455 vs 101 |
Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 3000
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 32 nm vs 40 nm
- Around 26% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1137 vs 903
- Around 26% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1137 vs 903
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm vs 40 nm |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1137 vs 903 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1137 vs 903 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 520
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 3000
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 520 | Intel HD Graphics 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 319 | 261 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 136 | 35 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1277 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 2.597 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 76.214 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.239 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 5.862 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.574 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 545 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 903 | 1137 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1455 | 101 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 545 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 903 | 1137 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1455 | 101 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GT 520 | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Generation 6.0 |
| Code name | GF119 | Sandy Bridge GT2 |
| Launch date | 13 April 2011 | 1 February 2011 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $59 | |
| Place in performance rating | 1603 | 1604 |
| Price now | $59.99 | |
| Type | Desktop | Laptop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 7.58 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 1620 MHz | 850 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 48 | |
| Floating-point performance | 155.52 gflops | 20.4 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 32 nm |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 102 °C | |
| Pipelines | 48 | 12 |
| Texture fill rate | 6.5 billion / sec | 1.7 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 29 Watt | |
| Transistor count | 292 million | 995 million |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA, Dual Link DVI-IHDMIVGA (optional) | No outputs |
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | |
| Height | 2.7" (6.9 cm) | |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 5.7" (14.5 cm) | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 3.1 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB (DDR3) | |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB / s | |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 / 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz (DDR3) | |
| Memory type | DDR3 | |
| Shared memory | 1 | |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||

