GeForce 8600M GS vs GTX 680M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680M SLI and GeForce 8600M GS, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
680M SLI outperforms 8600M GS by a whopping 7090% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 395 | 1461 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.81 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | N13E-GTX | G86 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 June 2012 (14 years ago) | 1 May 2007 (19 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2688 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 20 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 3.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.0288 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 32 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Interface | no data | MXM-II |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3600 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 12.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.1 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 133
+13200%
| 1−2
−13200%
|
| Full HD | 98
+9700%
| 1−2
−9700%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 30−35 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 85−90
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+2033%
|
3−4
−2033%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+714%
|
7−8
−714%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+417%
|
24−27
−417%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 229
+1808%
|
12−14
−1808%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+956%
|
9−10
−956%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 85−90
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+2033%
|
3−4
−2033%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+714%
|
7−8
−714%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+720%
|
5−6
−720%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+417%
|
24−27
−417%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+956%
|
9−10
−956%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+2033%
|
3−4
−2033%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+714%
|
7−8
−714%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+720%
|
5−6
−720%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+417%
|
24−27
−417%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 85−90
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+11200%
|
1−2
−11200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+6700%
|
2−3
−6700%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+14200%
|
1−2
−14200%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 21−24 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+86.7%
|
14−16
−86.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 75−80
+1420%
|
5−6
−1420%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Palworld | 12−14 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 680M SLI and 8600M GS compete in popular games:
- GTX 680M SLI is 13200% faster in 900p
- GTX 680M SLI is 9700% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680M SLI is 6700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 680M SLI surpassed 8600M GS in all 25 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.10 | 0.21 |
| Recency | 4 June 2012 | 1 May 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 80 nm |
GTX 680M SLI has a 7090% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 186% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 680M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600M GS in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
