UHD Graphics 605 vs GeForce 8600M GS
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8600M GS and UHD Graphics 605, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Graphics 605 outperforms 8600M GS by a whopping 414% 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 | 1437 | 1126 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.81 | 16.59 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | G86 | Gemini Lake GT1.5 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 May 2007 (18 years ago) | 11 December 2017 (7 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 | 16 | 144 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 200 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 750 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 5 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.600 | 13.50 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0288 TFLOPS | 0.216 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 3 |
| TMUs | 8 | 18 |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | no data |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-II | Ring Bus |
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 | DDR2 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 400 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| 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 | 2−3
−500%
| 12
+500%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−500%
| 24
+500%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−650%
| 15
+650%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−28%
|
30−35
+28%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−117%
|
24−27
+117%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7
−28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−28%
|
30−35
+28%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7
−28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1
−400%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−28%
|
30−35
+28%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how 8600M GS and UHD Graphics 605 compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics 605 is 500% faster in 1080p
- UHD Graphics 605 is 500% faster in 1440p
- UHD Graphics 605 is 650% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the 8600M GS is 400% faster.
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the UHD Graphics 605 is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- 8600M GS performs better in 3 tests (7%)
- UHD Graphics 605 performs better in 22 tests (51%)
- there's a draw in 18 tests (42%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.21 | 1.08 |
| Recency | 1 May 2007 | 11 December 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 5 Watt |
UHD Graphics 605 has a 414.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.
The UHD Graphics 605 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.
