GeForce 8600 GT vs Radeon RX Vega 5

Place in the ranking	653	1313
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	21.34	0.47
Architecture	Vega (2017−2020)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Vega	G84
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	7 January 2020 (5 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 cores	320	32
Core clock speed	no data	540 MHz
Boost clock speed	1400 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	289 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 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

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

19
+1800%

1−2

−1800%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

159.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	9	0−1
Elden Ring	11	0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	12−14	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	21 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Metro Exodus	10−12	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Valorant	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	12−14	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10	0−1
Dota 2	21 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Elden Ring	6	0−1
Far Cry 5	21 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Fortnite	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Forza Horizon 4	17 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Grand Theft Auto V	13	0−1
Metro Exodus	10−12	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	41 +1950%	2−3 −1950%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Valorant	10−11	0−1
World of Tanks	50 +1567%	3−4 −1567%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	12−14	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10	0−1
Dota 2	37 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Forza Horizon 4	14	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +1900%	2−3 −1900%
Valorant	10−11	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	3−4	0−1
Elden Ring	5−6	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	4−5	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +1450%	2−3 −1450%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4	0−1
World of Tanks	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	9−10	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	0−1
Far Cry 5	10−11	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	6−7	0−1
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7	0−1
Valorant	12−14	0−1

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Elden Ring	2−3	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Fortnite	4−5	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	3−4	0−1
Valorant	4−5	0−1

This is how RX Vega 5 and 8600 GT compete in popular games:

RX Vega 5 is 1800% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.65	0.32
Recency	7 January 2020	17 April 2007
Chip lithography	7 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	47 Watt

RX Vega 5 has a 1353.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1042.9% more advanced lithography process, and 213.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 5 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8600 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 5 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.