
Radeon Pro WX 4130
Popular choices:

Quadro M520
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 Radeon Pro WX 4130 is positioned at rank 186 and the Quadro M520 is on rank 145, so the Quadro M520 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon Pro WX 4130
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M520
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro M520 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.2% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon Pro WX 4130 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Radeon Pro WX 4130 | Quadro M520 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro M520 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro M520 holds the technical lead. Priced at $50 (vs $100), it costs 50% less, resulting in a 102.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon Pro WX 4130 | Quadro M520 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+102.4%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) | ✅More affordable ($50) |
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 Radeon Pro WX 4130 and Quadro M520

Radeon Pro WX 4130
The Radeon Pro WX 4130 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in March 1 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1002 MHz to 1053 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,890 points.

Quadro M520
The Quadro M520 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 11 2017. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1041 MHz to 1019 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 25W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,913 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon Pro WX 4130 scores 1,890 and the Quadro M520 reaches 1,913 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon Pro WX 4130 is built on GCN 4.0 while the Quadro M520 uses Maxwell, both on 14 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 640 (Radeon Pro WX 4130) vs 384 (Quadro M520). Raw compute: 1.348 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro WX 4130) vs 0.7995 TFLOPS (Quadro M520). Boost clocks: 1053 MHz vs 1019 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 4130 | Quadro M520 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,890 | 1,913+1% |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 640+67% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.348 TFLOPS+69% | 0.7995 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1053 MHz+3% | 1019 MHz |
| ROPs | 16+100% | 8 |
| TMUs | 40+150% | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB+25% | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 4130 | Quadro M520 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon Pro WX 4130 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro M520 has 2 GB. The Radeon Pro WX 4130 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 4130 | Quadro M520 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon Pro WX 4130 draws 50W versus the Quadro M520's 25W — a 66.7% difference. The Quadro M520 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon Pro WX 4130) vs 350W (Quadro M520). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 4130 | Quadro M520 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W | 25W-50% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 37.8 | 76.5+102% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon Pro WX 4130 launched at $300 MSRP and currently averages $100, while the Quadro M520 launched at $200 and now averages $50. The Quadro M520 costs 50% less ($50 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 18.9 (Radeon Pro WX 4130) vs 38.3 (Quadro M520) — the Quadro M520 offers 102.6% better value.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 4130 | Quadro M520 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $300 | $200-33% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $100 | $50-50% |
| Performance per Dollar | 18.9 | 38.3+103% |
| Codename | Baffin | GM108 |
| Release | March 1 2017 | January 11 2017 |
| Ranking | #697 | #695 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.

















