ATI Radeon 8500 vs Pro 460
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 460 with Radeon 8500, including specs and performance data.
Pro 460 outperforms ATI 8500 by a whopping 77100% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 498 | 1510 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 17.42 | 0.03 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Rage 7 (2001−2006) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | R200 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 30 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 cores | 1024 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 275 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 907 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 60 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 150 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 58.05 | 2.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.858 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 64 | 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | AGP 4x |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 64 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1270 MHz | 275 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 8.8 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 8.1 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 1.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/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.
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.
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 | 41 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 80−85 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 80−85 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 80−85 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 90−95 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.72 | 0.01 |
| 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 77100% 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
