GeForce 8600M GT vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and GeForce 8600M GT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms 8600M GT by a whopping 3076% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 486 | 1348 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 22.55 | 0.99 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | G84 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 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 | 96 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 475 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | no data | MXM-II |
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 | no data | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 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 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
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 | 27 | 0−1 |
| 1440p | 16 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 12 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 26
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 15
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 41
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 30 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1167%
|
3−4
−1167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 22 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Valorant | 124
+377%
|
24−27
−377%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 96
+638%
|
12−14
−638%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Dota 2 | 51
+467%
|
9−10
−467%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 21 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1167%
|
3−4
−1167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 15 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| Valorant | 112
+331%
|
24−27
−331%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 47
+422%
|
9−10
−422%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1167%
|
3−4
−1167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 22 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Valorant | 23
−13%
|
24−27
+13%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 15 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+3200%
|
2−3
−3200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+3133%
|
3−4
−3133%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8
−87.5%
|
14−16
+87.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 45−50
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 20 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 2150% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the 8600M GT is 88% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is ahead in 31 test (94%)
- 8600M GT is ahead in 2 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.21 | 0.29 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 31 December 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 20 Watt |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 3075.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
8600M GT, on the other hand, has 40% lower power consumption.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 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.
