GeForce RTX 5070 Ti vs 8600M GT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8600M GT with GeForce RTX 5070 Ti, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5070 Ti outperforms 8600M GT by a whopping 19415% 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 | 1299 | 7 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 63 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 60.94 |
| Power efficiency | 1.52 | 19.76 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | G84 | GB203 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 31 December 2007 (17 years ago) | 20 February 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $749 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 8960 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2452 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 289 million | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.600 | 686.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0608 TFLOPS | 43.94 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 96 |
| TMUs | 16 | 280 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 280 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 70 |
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 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 304 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-pin |
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 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 400 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 896.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 1−2
−23500%
| 236
+23500%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 137 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 89 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.17 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.47 |
| 4K | no data | 8.42 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−20300%
|
200−210
+20300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−20300%
|
200−210
+20300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−8175%
|
300−350
+8175%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2400%
|
170−180
+2400%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1838%
|
500−550
+1838%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1747%
|
270−280
+1747%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−20300%
|
200−210
+20300%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−19400%
|
1950−2000
+19400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−8175%
|
300−350
+8175%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 241 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2400%
|
170−180
+2400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−10520%
|
531
+10520%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1838%
|
500−550
+1838%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−20300%
|
200−210
+20300%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−19400%
|
1950−2000
+19400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−8175%
|
300−350
+8175%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2400%
|
170−180
+2400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−4920%
|
251
+4920%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1838%
|
500−550
+1838%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 250−260 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−51500%
|
500−550
+51500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−4275%
|
170−180
+4275%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−29400%
|
290−300
+29400%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 150−160 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1133%
|
180−190
+1133%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−16450%
|
300−350
+16450%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4700%
|
95−100
+4700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 338
+0%
|
338
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 321
+0%
|
321
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 304
+0%
|
304
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 153
+0%
|
153
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 260
+0%
|
260
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 206
+0%
|
206
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 101
+0%
|
101
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 198
+0%
|
198
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 147
+0%
|
147
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
This is how 8600M GT and RTX 5070 Ti compete in popular games:
- RTX 5070 Ti is 23500% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 5070 Ti is 51500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 5070 Ti is ahead in 23 tests (39%)
- there's a draw in 36 tests (61%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.39 | 76.11 |
| Recency | 31 December 2007 | 20 February 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 300 Watt |
8600M GT has 1400% lower power consumption.
RTX 5070 Ti, on the other hand, has a 19415.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 17 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1500% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5070 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600M GT in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 8600M GT is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 5070 Ti is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
