GeForce 8600M GT vs GTX 980 SLI Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile and GeForce 8600M GT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 980 SLI Mobile outperforms 8600M GT by a whopping 13290% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 119 | 1345 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.20 | 1.01 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | N16E-GXX SLI | G84 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 31 December 2007 (17 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 | 4096 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 1126 MHz | 475 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1228 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 10400 Million | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 330 Watt | 20 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 7.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.0608 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
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 | large | medium sized |
| Interface | no data | MXM-II |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 8 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3500 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 12.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 data | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.1 |
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.
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 | 137
+13600%
| 1−2
−13600%
|
| 4K | 68 | 0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+5350%
|
2−3
−5350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+1071%
|
7−8
−1071%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+8300%
|
1−2
−8300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+5350%
|
2−3
−5350%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+1071%
|
7−8
−1071%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+8300%
|
1−2
−8300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 160−170
+15900%
|
1−2
−15900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+4600%
|
3−4
−4600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1971%
|
7−8
−1971%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+731%
|
24−27
−731%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+5350%
|
2−3
−5350%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+1071%
|
7−8
−1071%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+2031%
|
12−14
−2031%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+8300%
|
1−2
−8300%
|
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+1478%
|
9−10
−1478%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 160−170
+15900%
|
1−2
−15900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+4600%
|
3−4
−4600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120−130 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1971%
|
7−8
−1971%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 132
+3200%
|
4−5
−3200%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+731%
|
24−27
−731%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+1071%
|
7−8
−1071%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+8300%
|
1−2
−8300%
|
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+1478%
|
9−10
−1478%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+4600%
|
3−4
−4600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1971%
|
7−8
−1971%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+1750%
|
4−5
−1750%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+731%
|
24−27
−731%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 160−170
+15900%
|
1−2
−15900%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+24900%
|
1−2
−24900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+8650%
|
2−3
−8650%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+24800%
|
1−2
−24800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+10200%
|
1−2
−10200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+6700%
|
1−2
−6700%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 95−100 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+420%
|
14−16
−420%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 51 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 220−230
+11000%
|
2−3
−11000%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
This is how GTX 980 SLI Mobile and 8600M GT compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 SLI Mobile is 13600% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 980 SLI Mobile is 11000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 980 SLI Mobile surpassed 8600M GT in all 33 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 38.83 | 0.29 |
| Recency | 22 September 2015 | 31 December 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 330 Watt | 20 Watt |
GTX 980 SLI Mobile has a 13289.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
8600M GT, on the other hand, has 1550% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600M GT 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.
