NVIDIA GeForce 920M vs NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 920M and NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 920M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 7 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- 2.1x more core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 459 MHz
- 3.4x more texture fill rate: 12.4 GTexel / s vs 3.6 billion / sec
- 24x more pipelines: 384 vs 16
- 10.1x better floating-point performance: 297.6 gflops vs 29.376 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 80 nm
- 16x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 256 MB
- 2.3x more memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 800 MHz
- 4.8x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 716 vs 149
- 3.7x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 119 vs 32
- 3.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 996
- 3.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 996
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 13 March 2015 vs 17 April 2007 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz vs 459 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 12.4 GTexel / s vs 3.6 billion / sec |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 16 |
| Floating-point performance | 297.6 gflops vs 29.376 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 80 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 256 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 800 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 716 vs 149 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 119 vs 32 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 996 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 996 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT
- Around 10% lower typical power consumption: 30 Watt vs 33 Watt
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt vs 33 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 920M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce 920M | NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 716 | 149 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 119 | 32 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3722 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.358 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 157.606 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.843 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.374 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 40.443 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1598 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3636 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 996 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1598 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3636 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 996 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 326 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce 920M | NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 | Tesla |
| Code name | GK208B | G86 |
| Launch date | 13 March 2015 | 17 April 2007 |
| Place in performance rating | 1297 | 1657 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $129 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 459 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 297.6 gflops | 29.376 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 16 |
| Texture fill rate | 12.4 GTexel / s | 3.6 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Transistor count | 585 million | 210 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB / s | 12.8 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
| Standard memory config per GPU | 256 MB | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Verde Drivers | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce 920M with others
NVIDIAGeForce 920M vs
ATIRadeon 9000
NVIDIAGeForce 920M vs
NVIDIAQuadro K610M
NVIDIAGeForce 920M vs
AMDRadeon R5 235 OEM
NVIDIAGeForce 920M vs
AMDRadeon R5 M240
NVIDIAGeForce 920M vs
AMDRadeon R7 M445
NVIDIAGeForce 920M vs
AMDRadeon R5 M435
