ATI Radeon 8500 vs GeForce GTX 950

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 950 and Radeon 8500, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 950
2015
2 GB GDDR5, 90 Watt
13.58
+67800%

GTX 950 outperforms ATI 8500 by a whopping 67800% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3801505
Place by popularity93not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.63no data
Power efficiency10.600.06
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Rage 7 (2001−2006)
GPU code nameGM206R200
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date20 August 2015 (9 years ago)14 August 2001 (23 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$159 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores768no data
Core clock speed1024 MHz275 MHz
Boost clock speed1188 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,940 million60 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)90 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate57.022.200
Floating-point processing power1.825 TFLOPSno data
ROPs324
TMUs488

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).

Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16AGP 4x
Length202 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot1-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)350 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone
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 typeGDDR5DDR
Maximum RAM amount2 GB64 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed6.6 GB/s275 MHz
Memory bandwidth105.6 GB/s8.8 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.21x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC support+-
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)8.1
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.51.4
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA+-

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.

GTX 950 13.58
+67800%
ATI 8500 0.02

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.

GTX 950 5344
+88967%
ATI 8500 6

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 HD52-0−1
4K22-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.06no data
4K7.23no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 24−27 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35 0−1
Battlefield 5 55−60 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 24−27 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30 0−1
Far Cry 5 40−45 0−1
Fortnite 75−80 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 55−60 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 35−40 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50 0−1
Valorant 110−120 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35 0−1
Battlefield 5 55−60 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 24−27 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30 0−1
Dota 2 85−90 0−1
Far Cry 5 40−45 0−1
Fortnite 75−80 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 55−60 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 35−40 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 37 0−1
Metro Exodus 27−30 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 38 0−1
Valorant 110−120 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 24−27 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30 0−1
Dota 2 85−90 0−1
Far Cry 5 40−45 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 55−60 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 35−40 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21 0−1
Valorant 110−120 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22 0−1
Metro Exodus 16−18 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120 0−1
Valorant 130−140 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 0−1
Far Cry 5 27−30 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 30−35 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 21−24 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 27−30 0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 6−7 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 28 0−1
Metro Exodus 9−10 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13 0−1
Valorant 70−75 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Dota 2 45−50 0−1
Far Cry 5 14−16 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 10−12 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.58 0.02
Recency 20 August 2015 14 August 2001
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 64 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 150 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 90 Watt 23 Watt

GTX 950 has a 67800% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 435.7% more advanced lithography process.

ATI 8500, on the other hand, has 291.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 950 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 8500 in performance tests.

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 GTX 950
GeForce GTX 950
ATI Radeon 8500
Radeon 8500

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.


4 2185 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 103 votes

Rate Radeon 8500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 950 or Radeon 8500, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.