GeForce 8600M GT vs GTX 285

Place in the ranking	704	1337
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.31	no data
Power efficiency	1.33	1.00
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GT200B	G84
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	23 December 2008 (16 years ago)	31 December 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$359	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	240	32
Core clock speed	648 MHz	475 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	289 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	204 Watt	20 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	51.84	7.600
Floating-point processing power	0.7085 TFLOPS	0.0608 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	80	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	267 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 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	512 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1242 MHz	400 MHz
Memory bandwidth	159.0 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	HDTVTwo 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

Supported technologies

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

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)

128bit

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	2.1	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.

GTX 285 3.93
+1255%

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.

GTX 285 1509
+1247%

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

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
World of Tanks	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Valorant	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Valorant	0−1	0−1

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 31 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.93	0.29
Recency	23 December 2008	31 December 2007
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	55 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	204 Watt	20 Watt

GTX 285 has a 1255.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.

8600M GT, on the other hand, has 920% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 285 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600M GT in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 285 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.