GeForce 8600 GT vs Iris Pro Graphics 6200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 6200 with GeForce 8600 GT, including specs and performance data.

Iris Pro Graphics 6200
2014
15 Watt
3.95
+1134%

Iris Pro Graphics 6200 outperforms 8600 GT by a whopping 1134% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6971309
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency18.050.47
ArchitectureGeneration 8.0 (2014−2015)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameBroadwell GT3eG84
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date5 September 2014 (10 years ago)17 April 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$159

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 cores38432
Core clock speed300 MHz540 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million289 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt47 Watt
Texture fill rate52.808.640
Floating-point processing power0.8448 TFLOPS0.07616 TFLOPS
ROPs68
TMUs4816

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceRing BusPCIe 1.0 x16
Lengthno data170 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
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 typeSystem SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared512 MB
Standard memory config per GPUno data256 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared700 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data22.4 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent2x DVI, 1x S-Video

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.42.1
OpenCL3.01.1
Vulkan+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.

Iris Pro Graphics 6200 3.95
+1134%
8600 GT 0.32

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.

Iris Pro Graphics 6200 1523
+1138%
8600 GT 123

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 7−8 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Battlefield 5 9−10 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Hitman 3 9−10 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+1300%
3−4
−1300%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Battlefield 5 9−10 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Hitman 3 9−10 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+1300%
3−4
−1300%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Hitman 3 9−10 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+1300%
3−4
−1300%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
+2300%
1−2
−2300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 0−1 0−1
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.95 0.32
Recency 5 September 2014 17 April 2007
Chip lithography 14 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 47 Watt

Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a 1134.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 213.3% lower power consumption.

The Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is a notebook card while GeForce 8600 GT is a desktop one.


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.


Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Iris Pro Graphics 6200
NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
GeForce 8600 GT

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.3 85 votes

Rate Iris Pro Graphics 6200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 1034 votes

Rate GeForce 8600 GT 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.