GeForce 8600 GTS vs Radeon RX Vega 64

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 64 and GeForce 8600 GTS, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RX Vega 64
2017
8 GB HBM2, 295 Watt
37.05
+8937%

RX Vega 64 outperforms 8600 GTS by a whopping 8937% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1291254
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation21.940.01
Power efficiency8.630.47
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameVega 10G84
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date7 August 2017 (7 years ago)17 April 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499 $199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX Vega 64 has 219300% better value for money than 8600 GTS.

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 cores409632
Core clock speed1247 MHz675 MHz
Boost clock speed1546 MHzno data
Number of transistors12,500 million289 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)295 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate395.810.80
Floating-point processing power12.66 TFLOPS0.0928 TFLOPS
ROPs648
TMUs25616

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length279 mm198 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pin1x 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 typeHBM2GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount8 GB256 MB
Standard memory config per GPUno data256 MB
Memory bus width2048 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed945 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth483.8 GB/s32 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.44.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.1.125N/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. 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.

RX Vega 64 37.05
+8937%
8600 GTS 0.41

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.

RX Vega 64 14242
+8914%
8600 GTS 158

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 HD118
+11700%
1−2
−11700%
1440p800−1
4K520−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.23
+4606%
199.00
−4606%
1440p6.24no data
4K9.60no data
  • RX Vega 64 has 4606% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 75−80 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80 0−1
Elden Ring 120−130
+12800%
1−2
−12800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 82 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 75−80 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 34 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 202
+10000%
2−3
−10000%
Metro Exodus 105
+10400%
1−2
−10400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 116
+11500%
1−2
−11500%
Valorant 182
+9000%
2−3
−9000%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 174
+17300%
1−2
−17300%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 27 0−1
Dota 2 50 0−1
Elden Ring 120−130
+12800%
1−2
−12800%
Far Cry 5 62 0−1
Fortnite 123
+12200%
1−2
−12200%
Forza Horizon 4 164
+16300%
1−2
−16300%
Grand Theft Auto V 110−120
+11600%
1−2
−11600%
Metro Exodus 79 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 190−200
+9700%
2−3
−9700%
Red Dead Redemption 2 57 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 130−140
+12900%
1−2
−12900%
Valorant 92
+9100%
1−2
−9100%
World of Tanks 270−280
+9200%
3−4
−9200%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 72 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 75−80 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 24 0−1
Dota 2 138
+13700%
1−2
−13700%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+9400%
1−2
−9400%
Forza Horizon 4 143
+14200%
1−2
−14200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 190−200
+9700%
2−3
−9700%
Valorant 140
+13900%
1−2
−13900%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 65−70 0−1
Elden Ring 70−75 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+17400%
1−2
−17400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 37 0−1
World of Tanks 230−240
+11650%
2−3
−11650%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 70−75 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 35−40 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 15 0−1
Far Cry 5 110−120
+11800%
1−2
−11800%
Forza Horizon 4 100
+9900%
1−2
−9900%
Metro Exodus 79 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65 0−1
Valorant 95
+9400%
1−2
−9400%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40 0−1
Dota 2 70−75 0−1
Elden Ring 35−40 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75 0−1
Metro Exodus 46 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+11800%
1−2
−11800%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 70−75 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 47 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 35−40 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7 0−1
Dota 2 96
+9500%
1−2
−9500%
Far Cry 5 50−55 0−1
Fortnite 50 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 59 0−1
Valorant 49 0−1

This is how RX Vega 64 and 8600 GTS compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega 64 is 11700% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 37.05 0.41
Recency 7 August 2017 17 April 2007
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 295 Watt 60 Watt

RX Vega 64 has a 8936.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

8600 GTS, on the other hand, has 391.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600 GTS in performance tests.


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 RX Vega 64
Radeon RX Vega 64
NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS
GeForce 8600 GTS

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.


4.3 727 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 64 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 204 votes

Rate GeForce 8600 GTS 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.