GeForce 8600M GT vs GTS 250

Place in the ranking	972	1336
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.09	no data
Power efficiency	0.70	0.99
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	G92B	G84
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	4 March 2009 (15 years ago)	31 December 2007 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	32
Core clock speed	738 MHz	475 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	289 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	20 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	44.93	7.600
Floating-point processing power	0.3871 TFLOPS	0.0608 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	64	16

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	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-II
Length	229 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	no data
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 type	GDDR3	DDR2
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1100 MHz	400 MHz
Memory bandwidth	70.4 GB/s	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	Two Dual Link DVI	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	4.0	4.0
OpenGL	3.0	3.3
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	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. 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.

GTS 250 1.54
+431%

8600M GT 0.29

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.

GTS 250 594
+430%

8600M GT 112

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

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 29 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.54	0.29
Recency	4 March 2009	31 December 2007
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	55 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	20 Watt

GTS 250 has a 431% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.

8600M GT, on the other hand, has 650% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTS 250 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600M GT in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTS 250 is a desktop card while GeForce 8600M GT is a notebook one.

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