AMD
Radeon 760M 8600G vs GeForce 210
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
NVIDIA
210
Aggregate performance score
We've compared 760M 8600G and 210 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗760M 8600G outperforms 210 by ~55% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+55%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 32Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: Radeon 760M 8600G (~4%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider 760M 8600G
- Higher catalog performance index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0 · FSR
Reasons to consider 210
- Lower recorded market price
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.2 · Not supported
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
AMD
NVIDIAPerformance
Price / performance
4831
100100
Graphics card ranking
Positions 14–19of 411
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce 210
83 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
48Better
31
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
41Better
29
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
39Better
26
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
47
100Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
54Better
52
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Device class
DirectX
Vulkan
OpenGL
HDMI
DisplayPort
Power consumption—
TFLOPSBetter
Clock speedBetter
VRAM
Upscaling
Compute API
Memory type
Memory frequency—
Memory bandwidth—
Interface
Power consumption—
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
Process nodeBetter
Release date
Launch price—
Max monitors
Max resolution
Recommended PSU
Length
Thickness
Architecture
Transistor count
Die size
Shader units / cores
USB Type-C
Memory cache
Memory bus
Power connector
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares 760M 8600G and 210 across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
760M 8600G210
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
197 FPS
154 FPS
1080p Ultra
139 FPS
108 FPS
1440p Ultra
108 FPS
58 FPS
4K Ultra
54 FPS
21 FPS
Counter-Strike 2760M 8600G197 FPS210154 FPS760M 8600G139 FPS210108 FPS760M 8600G108 FPS21058 FPS760M 8600G54 FPS21021 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077760M 8600G127 FPS210100 FPS760M 8600G110 FPS21086 FPS760M 8600G78 FPS21042 FPS760M 8600G36 FPS21014 FPS
Forza Horizon 5760M 8600G160 FPS210126 FPS760M 8600G104 FPS21081 FPS760M 8600G97 FPS21052 FPS760M 8600G79 FPS21031 FPS
Hogwarts Legacy760M 8600G104 FPS21081 FPS760M 8600G87 FPS21068 FPS760M 8600G70 FPS21038 FPS760M 8600G37 FPS21014 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100483143%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100563157%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100483434%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100043200%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1000100200%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100483629%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100483629%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100483434%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100483823%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100483531%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX12.210.1
Vulkan1.3Not supported
OpenGL4.63.3
UpscalingFSRNot supported
Compute APIOpenCL 3.0OpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.2
Architecture and release
ArchitectureNot publicly specifiedTesla 2.0
Process node4 nmBetter40 nm
Release date20232009
Device classMobileDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor countNot publicly specified260 million
Die sizeNot publicly specified57 mm²
Shader units / coresNot publicly specified16
Base clock800 MHzBetter589 MHz
Boost clock2800 MHzBetter589 MHz
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfaceIGPPCIe 2x16
LengthOEM dependent168 mm
ThicknessOEM dependentSingle-slot
Recommended PSUOEM dependent200 W
Power connectorIntegrated laptop powerNone
Display outputs and limits
HDMIOEM dependentBoard dependent
DisplayPortOEM dependentDisplayPort
USB Type-COEM dependentNo
Max monitorsOEM dependent3
Max resolutionOEM dependent4096 × 2160
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM- SMA1 GB DDR3
Memory typeSMADDR3
Memory busSystem memory interface64 bit
TFLOPS5.32Better0.039
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 32
- Specifications
- 0 / 65
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (4)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (3)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: 760M 8600G or 210?+
760M 8600G has the higher overall gaming score, while 760M 8600G offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
210 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
210 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
760M 8600G offers more overall performance, while 760M 8600G offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
210 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
760M 8600G is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
760M 8600G leads in combined 1440p performance. 760M 8600G can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
760M 8600G is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
210 is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
210 is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to 760M 8600G if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.