GeForce GT 620M vs Radeon HD 8500M

NVIDIA

GeForce GT 620M

2012Core: Up to 900 MHzBoost: 950 MHz
Similar parts
·······
VS
AMD

Radeon HD 8500M

2012Core: 675 MHz
Similar parts
·······

GeForce GT 620M vs Radeon HD 8500M Performance Spectrum

About G3D Mark

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

GeForce GT 620M vs Radeon HD 8500M FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

GeForce GT 620M vs Radeon HD 8500M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GeForce GT 620M

2012

Why buy it

  • 300% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (2 GB vs 512 MB).
  • More future proof: Kepler (2012−2018) on 28nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

  • Lower average FPS than Radeon HD 8500M across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
  • 2012 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.

Radeon HD 8500M

2012

Why buy it

  • 20.1% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.

Trade-offs

  • Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 2 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
  • 2012 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?
Radeon HD 8500M is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 20.1% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and by 3.5% in PassMark G3D (447 vs 432), so the answer here is pretty clean.
Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?
GeForce GT 620M is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: 2 GB vs 512 MB of VRAM. That gives it more room for heavier textures and higher settings over time.
Which GPU is the better buy today?
Radeon HD 8500M makes the most sense today based on the pricing and value data we have for this matchup. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, Radeon HD 8500M is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, GeForce GT 620M has the stronger long-term case.

GeForce GT 620M vs Radeon HD 8500M Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

NVIDIA

GeForce GT 620M

The GeForce GT 620M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 22 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from Up to 900 MHz to 950 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 45W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 432 points.

AMD

Radeon HD 8500M

The Radeon HD 8500M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 24 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 675 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 40W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 447 points.

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GT 620M scores 432 and the Radeon HD 8500M reaches 447 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GT 620M is built on Kepler while the Radeon HD 8500M uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 620M) vs 640 (Radeon HD 8500M). Raw compute: 0.7296 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 620M) vs 0.864 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 8500M).

FeatureGeForce GT 620MRadeon HD 8500M
G3D Mark Score
432
447+3%
Architecture
Kepler
GCN 1.0
Process Node
28 nm
28 nm
Shading Units
384
640+67%
Compute (TFLOPS)
0.7296 TFLOPS
0.864 TFLOPS+18%
ROPs
16
16
TMUs
32
40+25%
L1 Cache
32 KB
160 KB+400%
L2 Cache
256 KB
256 KB

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GT 620M gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon HD 8500M leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

FeatureGeForce GT 620MRadeon HD 8500M
Upscaling Tech
Upscaling support
FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation
Not Supported
Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction
No
No
Low Latency
NVIDIA Reflex
AMD Anti-Lag
💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GT 620M has 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon HD 8500M carries 512 MB. GeForce GT 620M gives you 300% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GT 620M and System on the Radeon HD 8500M.

FeatureGeForce GT 620MRadeon HD 8500M
VRAM Capacity
2 GB+300%
0.5 GB
Memory Type
GDDR5
Shared
Memory Bandwidth
Unknown
System
Bus Width
128-bit
System
L2 Cache
256 KB
256 KB
🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (FL11_0) (GeForce GT 620M) vs 11.1 (11_0) (Radeon HD 8500M). Vulkan: None vs 1.0. OpenGL: 4.1 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.

FeatureGeForce GT 620MRadeon HD 8500M
DirectX
12 (FL11_0)+8%
11.1 (11_0)
Vulkan
None
1.0
OpenGL
4.1
4.6+12%
Max Displays
3+50%
2
🎬

Media & Encoding

Decoder: PureVideo HD VP5 vs UVD 3.0. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP (GeForce GT 620M) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2 (Radeon HD 8500M).

FeatureGeForce GT 620MRadeon HD 8500M
Encoder
No
Decoder
PureVideo HD VP5
UVD 3.0
Codecs
MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP
H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GT 620M draws 45W versus the Radeon HD 8500M's 40W — a 11.8% difference. The Radeon HD 8500M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GT 620M) vs 350W (Radeon HD 8500M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 75°C.

FeatureGeForce GT 620MRadeon HD 8500M
TDP
45W
40W-11%
Recommended PSU
350W
350W
Power Connector
PCIe-powered
1x 6-pin
Length
0mm
Height
0mm
Slots
0
0
Temp (Load)
80°C
75°C-6%
Perf/Watt
9.6
11.2+17%