ATI Radeon 8500 vs Pro 460

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 460 with Radeon 8500, including specs and performance data.

Pro 460
2016
4 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
8.97
+44750%

Pro 460 outperforms ATI 8500 by a whopping 44750% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4871498
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency17.710.06
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Rage 7 (2001−2006)
GPU code nameBaffinR200
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date30 October 2016 (8 years ago)14 August 2001 (23 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 cores1024no data
Core clock speed850 MHz275 MHz
Boost clock speed907 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,000 million60 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate58.052.200
Floating-point processing power1.858 TFLOPSno data
ROPs164
TMUs648

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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8AGP 4x
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 amount4 GB64 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1270 MHz275 MHz
Memory bandwidth81.28 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)8.1
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.61.4
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro 460 8.97
+44750%
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.

Pro 460 3452
+57433%
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 HD40-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14 0−1
Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1
Far Cry 5 20−22 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 60−65 0−1
Hitman 3 16−18 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55 0−1
Metro Exodus 27−30 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14 0−1
Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1
Far Cry 5 20−22 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 60−65 0−1
Hitman 3 16−18 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55 0−1
Metro Exodus 27−30 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1
Far Cry 5 20−22 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 60−65 0−1
Hitman 3 16−18 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−11 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 35−40 0−1
Hitman 3 12−14 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20 0−1
Metro Exodus 12−14 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40 0−1
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−12 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.97 0.02
Recency 30 October 2016 14 August 2001
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 64 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 150 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 23 Watt

Pro 460 has a 44750% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 971.4% more advanced lithography process.

ATI 8500, on the other hand, has 52.2% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 460 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 8500 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 460 is a mobile workstation card while Radeon 8500 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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.


AMD Radeon Pro 460
Radeon Pro 460
ATI Radeon 8500
Radeon 8500

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 35 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 460 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 99 votes

Rate Radeon 8500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.