GeForce 8600 GT vs Radeon RX 550 Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 550 Mobile with GeForce 8600 GT, including specs and performance data.

RX 550 Mobile
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
6.98
+2081%

RX 550 Mobile outperforms 8600 GT by a whopping 2081% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5551309
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.47no data
Power efficiency9.570.47
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameLexaG84
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date2 July 2017 (7 years ago)17 April 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$79.99 $159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 550 Mobile and 8600 GT have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores64032
Core clock speed1100 MHz540 MHz
Boost clock speed1287 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,200 million289 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt47 Watt
Texture fill rate51.488.640
Floating-point processing power1.647 TFLOPS0.07616 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs4016

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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB512 MB
Standard memory config per GPUno data256 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/s22.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputs2x DVI, 1x S-Video

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.44.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/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 HD160−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8 0−1
Battlefield 5 20−22 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 0−1
Far Cry 5 16−18 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+2200%
2−3
−2200%
Hitman 3 12 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+4000%
1−2
−4000%
Metro Exodus 20−22 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+2550%
2−3
−2550%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8 0−1
Battlefield 5 20−22 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 0−1
Far Cry 5 16−18 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+2200%
2−3
−2200%
Hitman 3 12 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+4000%
1−2
−4000%
Metro Exodus 20−22 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+2550%
2−3
−2550%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 0−1
Far Cry 5 16−18 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+2200%
2−3
−2200%
Hitman 3 14−16 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+4000%
1−2
−4000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
Hitman 3 10−12 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16 0−1
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+2100%
2−3
−2100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6 0−1
Hitman 3 3−4 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24 0−1
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.98 0.32
Recency 2 July 2017 17 April 2007
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 47 Watt

RX 550 Mobile has a 2081.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

8600 GT, on the other hand, has 6.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 550 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 550 Mobile 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.


AMD Radeon RX 550 Mobile
Radeon RX 550 Mobile
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.


3.1 35 votes

Rate Radeon RX 550 Mobile 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.