Tesla P4 vs GeForce 8600M GT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8600M GT with Tesla P4, including specs and performance data.
Tesla P4 outperforms 8600M GT by a whopping 5340% 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 | 1305 | 280 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.53 | 22.13 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | G84 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 31 December 2007 (17 years ago) | 13 September 2016 (8 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 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 886 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1114 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 289 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.600 | 178.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0608 TFLOPS | 5.704 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 160 |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 400 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 192.3 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 compatibility
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 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | 6.1 |
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.
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 Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−5150%
|
210−220
+5150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−5150%
|
210−220
+5150%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−5150%
|
210−220
+5150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−4900%
|
350−400
+4900%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−5285%
|
1400−1450
+5285%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−5233%
|
800−850
+5233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−4900%
|
500−550
+4900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−5150%
|
210−220
+5150%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−5150%
|
210−220
+5150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−4900%
|
350−400
+4900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−5300%
|
270−280
+5300%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−5285%
|
1400−1450
+5285%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−4900%
|
500−550
+4900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−5150%
|
210−220
+5150%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−5150%
|
210−220
+5150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−4900%
|
350−400
+4900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−5300%
|
270−280
+5300%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−5285%
|
1400−1450
+5285%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−4900%
|
100−105
+4900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−5150%
|
210−220
+5150%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−5233%
|
800−850
+5233%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−4900%
|
100−105
+4900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4900%
|
100−105
+4900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−4900%
|
100−105
+4900%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.40 | 21.76 |
| Recency | 31 December 2007 | 13 September 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 75 Watt |
8600M GT has 275% lower power consumption.
Tesla P4, on the other hand, has a 5340% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.
The Tesla P4 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 Tesla P4 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
