GeForce Go 6200 vs 8600M GT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8600M GT and GeForce Go 6200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
8600M outperforms Go 6200 by a whopping 875% 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 | 1335 | 1556 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.50 | 0.19 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | G84 | NV44 A2 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 31 December 2007 (18 years ago) | 1 February 2006 (20 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 | 32 | 7 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 289 million | 75 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 110 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 16 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.600 | 1.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0608 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 2 |
| TMUs | 16 | 4 |
| 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 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
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 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 32 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 400 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 4.8 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 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+13%
|
21−24
−13%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+13%
|
21−24
−13%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+13%
|
21−24
−13%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the 8600M GT is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- 8600M GT performs better in 16 tests (80%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (20%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.39 | 0.04 |
| Recency | 31 December 2007 | 1 February 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 32 MB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 110 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 16 Watt |
8600M GT has a 875% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 38% more advanced lithography process.
Go 6200, on the other hand, has 25% lower power consumption.
The GeForce 8600M GT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 6200 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.
