Radeon Pro 5500M vs GeForce 8600 GT

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 8600 GT with Radeon Pro 5500M, including specs and performance data.

8600 GT
2007
512 MB GDDR3, 47 Watt
0.32

Pro 5500M outperforms 8600 GT by a whopping 5413% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1314313
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.4714.27
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameG84Navi 14
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date17 April 2007 (17 years ago)13 November 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$159 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores321536
Core clock speed540 MHz1000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1450 MHz
Number of transistors289 million6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)47 Watt85 Watt
Texture fill rate8.640139.2
Floating-point processing power0.07616 TFLOPS4.454 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs1696

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length170 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB8 GB
Standard memory config per GPU256 MBno data
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth22.4 GB/s192.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA1.1-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

8600 GT 0.32
Pro 5500M 17.64
+5413%

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.

8600 GT 123
Pro 5500M 6780
+5412%

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 HD1−2
−5700%
58
+5700%
1440p1−2
−5800%
59
+5800%
4K0−133

Cost per frame, $

1080p159.00no data
1440p159.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Elden Ring 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 15
+0%
15
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Metro Exodus 67
+0%
67
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75
+0%
75
+0%
Valorant 85
+0%
85
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+0%
12
+0%
Dota 2 83
+0%
83
+0%
Elden Ring 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 69
+0%
69
+0%
Metro Exodus 46
+0%
46
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 77
+0%
77
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
World of Tanks 208
+0%
208
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Dota 2 107
+0%
107
+0%
Far Cry 5 76
+0%
76
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Valorant 28
+0%
28
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 35
+0%
35
+0%
Elden Ring 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35
+0%
35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 107
+0%
107
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
World of Tanks 118
+0%
118
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 49
+0%
49
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 41
+0%
41
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 22
+0%
22
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Dota 2 25
+0%
25
+0%
Elden Ring 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 25
+0%
25
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 59
+0%
59
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 25
+0%
25
+0%
World of Tanks 71
+0%
71
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 54
+0%
54
+0%
Far Cry 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 15
+0%
15
+0%

This is how 8600 GT and Pro 5500M compete in popular games:

  • Pro 5500M is 5700% faster in 1080p
  • Pro 5500M is 5800% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.32 17.64
Recency 17 April 2007 13 November 2019
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 47 Watt 85 Watt

8600 GT has 80.9% lower power consumption.

Pro 5500M, on the other hand, has a 5412.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1042.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro 5500M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 8600 GT is a desktop card while Radeon Pro 5500M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
GeForce 8600 GT
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
Radeon Pro 5500M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 1039 votes

Rate GeForce 8600 GT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 269 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 5500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.