NVIDIA
GeForce 8500 GT vs GeForce GTX 1660
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
NVIDIA
GTX 1660
Aggregate performance score
We've compared 8500 GT and GTX 1660 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗8500 GT outperforms GTX 1660 by 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.+8%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better.GeForce 8500 GT vs GeForce GTX 1660: key takeaway
The comparison of 8500 GT and GTX 1660 shows a 8% advantage for 8500 GT in gaming performance, while GTX 1660 may still be stronger in efficiency and feature set. Use the sections below to check whether that lead comes from real FPS, specifications, efficiency, price or platform features.
SUMMARY PROFILE
Verified-metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIAPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
4138
100100
100100
760
COMPARISON RESULT
8500 GT is the best overall choice
8500 GT leads in combined game performance. 8500 GT offers the better price per frame, while the final choice depends on the required features, memory, and games.
8500 GT leads in the combined performance index
8500 GT costs less
CATALOG POSITION
Full ranking →Graphics card ranking
Positions 54–59of 319
COMPARISON VERDICT
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce 8500 GT
157 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
GeForce 8500 GT
100/100 · Price $79The choice is based on the price-to-performance index and launch price.
OVERALL SCORE
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
The Summary score section compares 8500 GT and GTX 1660 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
41Better
38
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
36Better
34
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
34Better
31
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100
100
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
63Better
62
FULL COMPARISON
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
The Specifications section compares 8500 GT and GTX 1660 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
Transistor count210 million6600 millionBetter
Length229 mm229 mm
Device classDesktopDesktop
DirectX10.012.1
OpenGL3.34.6
TFLOPS0.0295.027Better
Power consumption30 WBetter120 W
Memory typeDDR2GDDR5
Power connectorNone8 pin
Release date20072019
ArchitectureTeslaTuring
ThicknessSingle-slotDual-slot
Compute APIOpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1OpenCL 3.0, CUDA 7.5
Launch price$79Better$229
Shader units / cores161408Better
Clock speed459 MHz1530 - 1785 MHzBetter
Base clock459 MHz1530 MHzBetter
Boost clock459 MHz1785 MHzBetter
VRAM256 MB DDR2Better6 GB GDDR5
Memory frequency800 MHzBetter8 GHz
Memory bus128 bit192 bitBetter
Memory bandwidth12800 GB/sBetter192 GB/s
InterfacePCIe 1x16PCIe 3x16
Power consumption30 WBetter120 W
Process node80 nm12 nmBetter
Recommended PSU200 WBetter300 W
Die size127 mm²Better284 mm²
Memory cacheL2 0.03 MBBetterL1 64 KB, L2 1.5 MB
Max monitors33
Max resolution2560 × 16007680 × 4320
USB Type-CNoNo
VulkanNot supported1.4
DisplayPortBoard dependentDisplayPort 1.4a
HDMIBoard dependentHDMI 2.0
UpscalingNot supportedNVIDIA Image Scaling (NIS)
GAME TEST BENCH
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares 8500 GT and GTX 1660 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.
8500 GTGTX 1660
Verified H2HCommunity VerifiedEstimatedPredicted
Black Myth: Wukong
1080p High
23 FPSEstimated 65%
22 FPSEstimated 66%
1080p Ultra
20 FPSEstimated 65%
19 FPSEstimated 66%
1440p Ultra
12 FPSEstimated 61%
11 FPSEstimated 60%
4K Ultra
5 FPSEstimated 57%
5 FPSEstimated 55%
Black Myth: Wukong8500 GT23 FPSEstimated 65%GTX 166022 FPSEstimated 66%8500 GT20 FPSEstimated 65%GTX 166019 FPSEstimated 66%8500 GT12 FPSEstimated 61%GTX 166011 FPSEstimated 60%8500 GT5 FPSEstimated 57%GTX 16605 FPSEstimated 55%
Call of Duty: Warzone8500 GT23 FPSEstimated 65%GTX 166022 FPSEstimated 66%8500 GT20 FPSEstimated 65%GTX 166019 FPSEstimated 66%8500 GT12 FPSEstimated 61%GTX 166011 FPSEstimated 60%8500 GT5 FPSEstimated 57%GTX 16605 FPSEstimated 55%
Counter-Strike 28500 GT196 FPSEstimated 73%GTX 1660189 FPSEstimated 74%8500 GT138 FPSEstimated 73%GTX 1660133 FPSEstimated 74%8500 GT87 FPSEstimated 69%GTX 166077 FPSEstimated 68%8500 GT33 FPSEstimated 65%GTX 166024 FPSEstimated 62%
Cyberpunk 20778500 GT127 FPSEstimated 73%GTX 1660122 FPSEstimated 74%8500 GT109 FPSEstimated 73%GTX 1660105 FPSEstimated 74%8500 GT63 FPSEstimated 69%GTX 166056 FPSEstimated 68%8500 GT22 FPSEstimated 65%GTX 166016 FPSEstimated 62%
Forza Horizon 58500 GT160 FPSEstimated 79%GTX 1660154 FPSEstimated 80%8500 GT103 FPSEstimated 73%GTX 166099 FPSEstimated 74%8500 GT79 FPSEstimated 69%GTX 166069 FPSEstimated 68%8500 GT48 FPSEstimated 65%GTX 166036 FPSEstimated 62%
God of War Ragnarök8500 GT23 FPSEstimated 65%GTX 166022 FPSEstimated 66%8500 GT20 FPSEstimated 65%GTX 166019 FPSEstimated 66%8500 GT12 FPSEstimated 61%GTX 166011 FPSEstimated 60%8500 GT5 FPSEstimated 57%GTX 16605 FPSEstimated 55%
Hogwarts Legacy8500 GT103 FPSEstimated 73%GTX 166099 FPSEstimated 74%8500 GT86 FPSEstimated 73%GTX 166083 FPSEstimated 74%8500 GT57 FPSEstimated 69%GTX 166050 FPSEstimated 68%8500 GT22 FPSEstimated 65%GTX 166017 FPSEstimated 62%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 20248500 GT23 FPSEstimated 65%GTX 166022 FPSEstimated 66%8500 GT20 FPSEstimated 65%GTX 166019 FPSEstimated 66%8500 GT12 FPSEstimated 61%GTX 166011 FPSEstimated 60%8500 GT5 FPSEstimated 57%GTX 16605 FPSEstimated 55%
Monster Hunter Wilds8500 GT23 FPSEstimated 65%GTX 166022 FPSEstimated 66%8500 GT20 FPSEstimated 65%GTX 166019 FPSEstimated 66%8500 GT12 FPSEstimated 61%GTX 166011 FPSEstimated 60%8500 GT5 FPSEstimated 57%GTX 16605 FPSEstimated 55%
Starfield8500 GT23 FPSEstimated 65%GTX 166022 FPSEstimated 66%8500 GT20 FPSEstimated 65%GTX 166019 FPSEstimated 66%8500 GT12 FPSEstimated 61%GTX 166011 FPSEstimated 60%8500 GT5 FPSEstimated 57%GTX 16605 FPSEstimated 55%
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
The Benchmarks section compares 8500 GT and GTX 1660 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 10041388%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100324534%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100314435%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100760158%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001001000%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
The Detailed comparison section compares 8500 GT and GTX 1660 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100264859%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100274754%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100314435%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100225078%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100314537%
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
The Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling section compares 8500 GT and GTX 1660 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
DirectX10.012.1
VulkanNot supported1.4
OpenGL3.34.6
UpscalingNot supportedNVIDIA Image Scaling (NIS)
Compute APIOpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1OpenCL 3.0, CUDA 7.5
Architecture and release
The Architecture and release section compares 8500 GT and GTX 1660 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
ArchitectureTeslaTuring
Process node80 nm12 nmBetter
Release date20072019
Device classDesktopDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
The Core layout and clocks section compares 8500 GT and GTX 1660 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
Transistor count210 million6600 millionBetter
Die size127 mm²Better284 mm²
Shader units / cores161408Better
Base clock459 MHz1530 MHzBetter
Boost clock459 MHz1785 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
The Form factor and compatibility section compares 8500 GT and GTX 1660 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
InterfacePCIe 1x16PCIe 3x16
Length229 mm229 mm
ThicknessSingle-slotDual-slot
Recommended PSU200 WBetter300 W
Power connectorNone8 pin
Display outputs and limits
The Display outputs section compares 8500 GT and GTX 1660 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
HDMIBoard dependentHDMI 2.0
DisplayPortBoard dependentDisplayPort 1.4a
USB Type-CNoNo
Max monitors33
Max resolution2560 × 16007680 × 4320
Memory and compute throughput
The VRAM capacity and bandwidth section compares 8500 GT and GTX 1660 with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
VRAM256 MB DDR2Better6 GB GDDR5
Memory typeDDR2GDDR5
Memory bus128 bit192 bitBetter
TFLOPS0.0295.027Better
HEAD TO HEAD · DISCOVER
6Other comparisons
Arc A310Intel
Navi II 2CU 7xxx/9xxxAMDReviews and questions
AI EXPLAIN · HEAD TO HEAD
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.
REAL CONFIGURATIONS
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
♢Moderator reviewed☆Helpful to the community🏅Expert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: 8500 GT or GTX 1660?+
8500 GT has the higher overall gaming score, while 8500 GT offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
8500 GT 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?+
8500 GT is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
8500 GT offers more overall performance, while 8500 GT offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
8500 GT is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
8500 GT is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
8500 GT leads in combined 1440p performance. 8500 GT can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
8500 GT is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
8500 GT 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?+
8500 GT 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 8500 GT 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.