
FirePro V7800 vs Quadro P520

FirePro V7800
Popular choices:

Quadro P520
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FirePro V7800 is positioned at rank 257 and the Quadro P520 is on rank 111, so the Quadro P520 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FirePro V7800
Performance Per Dollar Quadro P520
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Quadro P520 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2011). The Quadro P520 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FirePro V7800 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro P520 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the FirePro V7800.
| Insight | FirePro V7800 | Quadro P520 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)) | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (254mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The FirePro V7800 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $96 versus $150 for the Quadro P520, it costs 36% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 55.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FirePro V7800 | Quadro P520 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+55.8%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($96) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro V7800 and Quadro P520

FirePro V7800
The FirePro V7800 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 24 2011. It features the TeraScale 3 architecture. The core clock speed is 725 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,028 points.

Quadro P520
The Quadro P520 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 23 2019. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1303 MHz to 1493 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 18W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,034 points.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro V7800 scores 2,028 and the Quadro P520 reaches 2,034 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro V7800 is built on TeraScale 3 while the Quadro P520 uses Pascal, both on 40 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (FirePro V7800) vs 384 (Quadro P520). Raw compute: 1.856 TFLOPS (FirePro V7800) vs 1.147 TFLOPS (Quadro P520).
| Feature | FirePro V7800 | Quadro P520 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,028 | 2,034 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 1280+233% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.856 TFLOPS+62% | 1.147 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 80+233% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB+122% | 144 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro V7800 | Quadro P520 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | FirePro V7800 | Quadro P520 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro V7800 draws 150W versus the Quadro P520's 18W — a 157.1% difference. The Quadro P520 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro V7800) vs 350W (Quadro P520). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | FirePro V7800 | Quadro P520 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 18W-88% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 254mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 13.5 | 113.0+737% |
Value Analysis
The FirePro V7800 launched at $759 MSRP and currently averages $96, while the Quadro P520 launched at $150 and now averages $150. The FirePro V7800 costs 36% less ($54 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 21.1 (FirePro V7800) vs 13.6 (Quadro P520) — the FirePro V7800 offers 55.1% better value. The Quadro P520 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2011).
| Feature | FirePro V7800 | Quadro P520 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $759 | $150-80% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $96-36% | $150 |
| Performance per Dollar | 21.1+55% | 13.6 |
| Codename | Cayman | GP108 |
| Release | May 24 2011 | May 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #656 | #677 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















