GeForce 8600 GTS vs Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire with GeForce 8600 GTS, including specs and performance data.
HD 7970M Crossfire outperforms 8600 GTS by a whopping 3467% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 339 | 1243 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 5.53 | 0.52 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Wimbledon XT | G84 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 17 April 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 2560 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 675 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 10.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.0928 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 | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 198 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
| 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 256 MB |
| Standard memory config per GPU | no data | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 32 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
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:
| 900p | 132
+4300%
| 3−4
−4300%
|
| Full HD | 101
+4950%
| 2−3
−4950%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 99.50 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+6500%
|
1−2
−6500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+4300%
|
2−3
−4300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+6500%
|
1−2
−6500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+3700%
|
3−4
−3700%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
| World of Tanks | 200−210
+3960%
|
5−6
−3960%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+6500%
|
1−2
−6500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+3700%
|
3−4
−3700%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+3625%
|
4−5
−3625%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 110−120
+3600%
|
3−4
−3600%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 18−20 | 0−1 |
This is how HD 7970M Crossfire and 8600 GTS compete in popular games:
- HD 7970M Crossfire is 4300% faster in 900p
- HD 7970M Crossfire is 4950% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.05 | 0.45 |
| Recency | 1 May 2012 | 17 April 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 60 Watt |
HD 7970M Crossfire has a 3466.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
8600 GTS, on the other hand, has 233.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600 GTS in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire is a notebook card while GeForce 8600 GTS is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
