ATI Radeon 8500 vs R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and Radeon 8500, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
2014
2.79
+27800%

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms 8500 by a whopping 27800% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8291563
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data0.03
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Rage 7 (2001−2006)
GPU code nameKaveri SpectreR200
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date14 January 2014 (11 years ago)14 August 2001 (24 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 cores512no data
Core clock speed720 MHz275 MHz
Number of transistorsno data60 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data23 Watt
Texture fill rateno data2.200
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8

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).

Interfaceno dataAGP 4x
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataDDR
Maximum RAM amountno data64 MB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data275 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data8.8 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectorsno data1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)8.1
OpenGLno data1.4
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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 HD18-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 9−10 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 10−11 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Fortnite 14−16 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 7−8 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14 0−1
Valorant 45−50 0−1

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 9−10 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Dota 2 29 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 10−11 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Fortnite 14−16 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 7−8 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 9 0−1
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10 0−1
Valorant 45−50 0−1

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Dota 2 26 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 10−11 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6 0−1
Valorant 45−50 0−1

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 14−16 0−1

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 6−7 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27 0−1
Valorant 24−27 0−1

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 5−6 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16 0−1
Valorant 14−16 0−1

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 8−9 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.79 0.01
Recency 14 January 2014 14 August 2001
Chip lithography 28 nm 150 nm

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 27800% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 435.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 8500 in performance tests.

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 R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
ATI Radeon 8500
Radeon 8500

Other comparisons

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.


3.4 16 votes

Rate Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 108 votes

Rate Radeon 8500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) or Radeon 8500, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.