GeForce 8600 GT vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs with GeForce 8600 GT, including specs and performance data.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms 8600 GT by a whopping 2859% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 467 | 1309 |
| Place by popularity | 87 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 23.19 | 0.47 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | G84 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 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.
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 | 96 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 540 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 47 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 8.640 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.07616 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 170 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| 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 | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB |
| Standard memory config per GPU | no data | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 22.4 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 Connectors | no data | 2x 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.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
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 HD | 26 | 0−1 |
| 1440p | 15 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 11 | -0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 22 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 36
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+3050%
|
2−3
−3050%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 124
+3000%
|
4−5
−3000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 17 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 90
+2900%
|
3−4
−2900%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 18 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 32
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+3050%
|
2−3
−3050%
|
| Hitman 3 | 23 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 112
+3633%
|
3−4
−3633%
|
| Metro Exodus | 28 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 26 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 84
+4100%
|
2−3
−4100%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 23 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+3050%
|
2−3
−3050%
|
| Hitman 3 | 20 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 23 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
+2950%
|
2−3
−2950%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 19 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
+2900%
|
2−3
−2900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 11 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.47 | 0.32 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 17 April 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 47 Watt |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 2859.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 700% more advanced lithography process, and 67.9% lower power consumption.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600 GT in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
