NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M vs NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M and NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512 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 520M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- Around 3% higher core clock speed: 672 MHz vs 650 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 65 nm
- 11.3x lower typical power consumption: 12 Watt vs 135 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 1 GB vs 512 MB
- Around 17% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 77 vs 66
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 5 January 2011 vs 11 December 2007 |
| Core clock speed | 672 MHz vs 650 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 12 Watt vs 135 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 1 GB vs 512 MB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 77 vs 66 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512
- 7.1x more texture fill rate: 41.6 GTexel / s vs 5.9 billion / sec
- 2.7x more pipelines: 128 vs 48
- 3.2x better floating-point performance: 416.0 gflops vs 129.02 gflops
- 2.1x more memory clock speed: 1640 MHz vs 800 MHz
- Around 92% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 550 vs 286
- Around 40% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3342 vs 2380
- Around 40% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3342 vs 2380
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 41.6 GTexel / s vs 5.9 billion / sec |
| Pipelines | 128 vs 48 |
| Floating-point performance | 416.0 gflops vs 129.02 gflops |
| Memory clock speed | 1640 MHz vs 800 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 550 vs 286 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3342 vs 2380 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3342 vs 2380 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M | NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 286 | 550 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 77 | 66 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1313 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 3.237 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 83.376 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.26 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 5.92 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.992 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 536 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1731 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2380 | 3342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 536 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1731 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2380 | 3342 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M | NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Fermi | Tesla |
| Code name | GF108 | G92 |
| Launch date | 5 January 2011 | 11 December 2007 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $59.99 | $349 |
| Place in performance rating | 1558 | 1346 |
| Price now | $59.99 | |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 7.54 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 672 MHz | 650 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 48 | |
| Floating-point performance | 129.02 gflops | 416.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 48 | 128 |
| Texture fill rate | 5.9 billion / sec | 41.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 12 Watt | 135 Watt |
| Transistor count | 585 million | 754 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 254 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 API | 10.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB / s | 52.5 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1640 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Verde Drivers | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M with others
NVIDIAGeForce GT 520M vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 880M
NVIDIAGeForce GT 520M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 335M
NVIDIAGeForce GT 520M vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 5145
NVIDIAGeForce GT 520M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 410M
NVIDIAGeForce GT 520M vs
IntelHD Graphics P3000
NVIDIAGeForce GT 520M vs
AMDRadeon HD 6410D IGP
