GeForce 8600M GS vs Radeon Pro 460
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 460 with GeForce 8600M GS, including specs and performance data.
Pro 460 outperforms 8600M GS by a whopping 3848% 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 | 563 | 1460 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 18.32 | 0.81 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | G86 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 October 2016 (9 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 | 1024 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 907 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 20 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 58.05 | 3.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.858 TFLOPS | 0.0288 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 64 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 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 | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-II |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1270 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 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 outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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:
| Full HD | 41
+4000%
| 1−2
−4000%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 14−16 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 50−55
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+250%
|
24−27
−250%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+983%
|
12−14
−983%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+600%
|
9−10
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 50−55
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+250%
|
24−27
−250%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+600%
|
9−10
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+250%
|
24−27
−250%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+6300%
|
1−2
−6300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 10−12 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+640%
|
5−6
−640%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Palworld | 4−5 | 0−1 |
This is how Pro 460 and 8600M GS compete in popular games:
- Pro 460 is 4000% 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 Pro 460 is 2150% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Pro 460 surpassed 8600M GS in all 25 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.29 | 0.21 |
| Recency | 30 October 2016 | 1 May 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 20 Watt |
Pro 460 has a 3848% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471% more advanced lithography process.
8600M GS, on the other hand, has 75% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro 460 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600M GS in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 460 is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce 8600M GS is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
