GeForce 8600M GS vs Radeon HD 8250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8250 and GeForce 8600M GS, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 8250 outperforms 8600M GS by a whopping 139% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1229 | 1380 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.79 | 0.80 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Kalindi | G86 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 May 2013 (11 years ago) | 1 May 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 | 128 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 400 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 8 Watt | 20 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.200 | 3.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1024 TFLOPS | 0.0288 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 4 |
| TMUs | 8 | 8 |
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 | IGP | 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 | System Shared | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 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 outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
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
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| World of Tanks | 16−18
+45.5%
|
10−12
−45.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| World of Tanks | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 8250 is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8250 is ahead in 17 tests (59%)
- there's a draw in 12 tests (41%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.55 | 0.23 |
| Recency | 23 May 2013 | 1 May 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 8 Watt | 20 Watt |
HD 8250 has a 139.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 8250 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600M GS 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.
