GeForce 8500 GT vs NVS 2100M

Place in the ranking	1281	1265
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	2.25	0.89
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GT218	G86
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	7 January 2010 (15 years ago)	17 April 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$129

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	16	16
Core clock speed	535 MHz	459 MHz
Number of transistors	260 million	210 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	11 Watt	30 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.280	3.672
Floating-point processing power	0.03936 TFLOPS	0.02938 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	4
TMUs	8	8

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	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 1.0 x16
Length	no data	229 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	GDDR3	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	256 MB
Standard memory config per GPU	no data	256 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	790 MHz	400 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.64 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

No outputs

1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	4.1	4.0
OpenGL	3.3	2.1
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	1.2	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.

NVS 2100M 0.36

8500 GT 0.39
+8.3%

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.

NVS 2100M 139

8500 GT 149
+7.2%

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	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 +0%	7−8 +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 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

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

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Valorant	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.36	0.39
Recency	7 January 2010	17 April 2007
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	256 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	11 Watt	30 Watt

NVS 2100M has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 172.7% lower power consumption.

8500 GT, on the other hand, has a 8.3% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between NVS 2100M and GeForce 8500 GT.

Be aware that NVS 2100M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 8500 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.