- Home
- Processors
- Videocards
- Home
- / Videocards
- / Compare videocards
- / Intel HD Graphics 4000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
Intel HD Graphics 4000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 4000 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 - 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.
Intel HD Graphics 4000 
vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M 
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 4000
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 4 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 22 nm vs 40 nm
- Around 21% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 347 vs 286
- 2.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 194 vs 77
- 2.7x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 8.712 vs 3.237
- Around 87% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 155.638 vs 83.376
- 3.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.931 vs 0.26
- Around 24% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 7.36 vs 5.92
- 2.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 12.009 vs 4.992
- Around 41% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 754 vs 536
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2392 vs 2380
- Around 41% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 754 vs 536
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2392 vs 2380
| Specifications (specs) |
| Launch date | 14 May 2012 vs 5 January 2011 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm vs 40 nm |
| Benchmarks |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 347 vs 286 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 vs 77 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.712 vs 3.237 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 155.638 vs 83.376 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.931 vs 0.26 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 7.36 vs 5.92 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 12.009 vs 4.992 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 754 vs 536 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2392 vs 2380 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 754 vs 536 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2392 vs 2380 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
- Around 3% higher core clock speed: 672 MHz vs 650 MHz
- Around 40% higher texture fill rate: 5.9 billion / sec vs 4.2 GTexel / s
- 3x more pipelines: 48 vs 16
- 3.8x better floating-point performance: 129.02 gflops vs 33.6 gflops
- 3.8x lower typical power consumption: 12 Watt vs 45 Watt
- 2.4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 1313 vs 538
- Around 16% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1731 vs 1492
- Around 16% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1731 vs 1492
| Specifications (specs) |
| Core clock speed | 672 MHz vs 650 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 5.9 billion / sec vs 4.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 48 vs 16 |
| Floating-point performance | 129.02 gflops vs 33.6 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 12 Watt vs 45 Watt |
| Benchmarks |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1313 vs 538 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1731 vs 1492 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1731 vs 1492 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 4000 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 - 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) | | |
| Name | Intel HD Graphics 4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 347 | 286 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 | 77 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 538 | 1313 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.712 | 3.237 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 155.638 | 83.376 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.931 | 0.26 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 7.36 | 5.92 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 12.009 | 4.992 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 754 | 536 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1492 | 1731 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2392 | 2380 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 754 | 536 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1492 | 1731 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2392 | 2380 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel HD Graphics 4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M |
Essentials |
| Architecture | Generation 7.0 | Fermi |
| Code name | Ivy Bridge GT2 | GF108 |
| Launch date | 14 May 2012 | 5 January 2011 |
| Place in performance rating | 1501 | 1558 |
| Type | Laptop | Laptop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $59.99 |
| Price now | $59.99 |
| Value for money (0-100) | 7.54 |
Technical info |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 672 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 33.6 gflops | 129.02 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 16 | 48 |
| Texture fill rate | 4.2 GTexel / s | 5.9 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,200 million | 585 million |
| CUDA cores | 48 |
Video outputs and ports |
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
API support |
| DirectX | 11.1 (11_0) | 12 API |
| OpenGL | 4.0 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 |
Memory |
| Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Shared memory | 1 | 0 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB / s |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3 |
Technologies |
| Quick Sync |
| CUDA |
| DirectCompute |
| Optimus |
| Verde Drivers |
Navigation
Differences Compare benchmarks Compare specifications (specs)
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare
Compare Intel HD Graphics 4000 with others
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs NVIDIAGeForce GT 550M IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs NVIDIAGeForce GT 540M IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs NVIDIAQuadro 3000M IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs NVIDIAGeForce GT 620M IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs 
AMDRadeon HD 7480D IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs NVIDIAGeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition About
AskGeek.io - Compare processors and videocards to choose the best.
Sections
Links
Language
English
Deutsch
Française
Español
Português
Русский © 2025, AskGeek.io