GeForce 8600M GT vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Aggregate performance score
We've compared M1 8-Core GPU and GeForce 8600M GT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Apple M1 8-Core GPU outperforms 8600M GT by a whopping 4571% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 381 | 1341 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.01 |
| Architecture | no data | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | no data | G84 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 November 2020 (4 years ago) | 31 December 2007 (17 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 8 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 1278 MHz | 475 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 20 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 7.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.0608 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | no data | MXM-II |
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 | no data | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 12.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 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:
| Full HD | 27 | 0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1000%
|
5−6
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+629%
|
7−8
−629%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+7600%
|
1−2
−7600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1000%
|
5−6
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
+1567%
|
6−7
−1567%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| World of Tanks | 180−190
+1417%
|
12−14
−1417%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+629%
|
7−8
−629%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1000%
|
5−6
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
+1567%
|
6−7
−1567%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+5100%
|
2−3
−5100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 95−100
+4700%
|
2−3
−4700%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+60%
|
14−16
−60%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+60%
|
14−16
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+60%
|
14−16
−60%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+60%
|
14−16
−60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 14−16 | 0−1 |
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 5100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Apple M1 8-Core GPU is ahead in 30 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.08 | 0.28 |
| Recency | 10 November 2020 | 31 December 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 80 nm |
Apple M1 8-Core GPU has a 4571.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 1500% more advanced lithography process.
The M1 8-Core GPU is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600M GT in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
