I have this passive GPU:
It's a 1gb card. Most of the 8500 GTs I see are 256mb or 512mb.
I am hesitant to throw it out, as I like the look of it. But I know it is a very under powered card for games of it's era. What, if anything, would you use this GPU for?
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-11-29, 11:38:I am hesitant to throw it out, as I like the look of it. But I know it is a very under powered card for games of it's era. What, if anything, would you use this GPU for?
Maybe as a secondary GPU which only handles PhysX?
I never used that configuration myself, but it should be possible in theory.
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2025-11-29, 12:06:Maybe as a secondary GPU which only handles PhysX?
I never used that configuration myself, but it should be possible in theory.
Interesting idea. I could maybe try it in my GTX 285 system, as same version drivers should work on both. Though, the 285 is Tesla 2.0 architecture vs Tesla 1.0 on the 8500 GT.
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-11-29, 11:38:I have this passive GPU: […]
I have this passive GPU:
It's a 1gb card. Most of the 8500 GTs I see are 256mb or 512mb.
I am hesitant to throw it out, as I like the look of it. But I know it is a very under powered card for games of it's era. What, if anything, would you use this GPU for?
i would say its usable, ive got an 8400gs 512mb i've kept hold of, i only really use it for boards that dont have onboard video.
i know the 8600gt performance wise comes under a 7900gtx, so the 8500gt will come under that. infact ive just checked the 8500gt specs and it seems to be a beefed up 8400gs, with a larger bus twice the ram and ddr3 as opposed to ddr2.
the 8600gt is the minimum requirement for games like Tomb raider 2013 and max payne 3 some of thoise cards only have 256mb of vram, so it would be interesting to see how the 8500gt handles those especially with 1gb, though you may still be looking at around 30fps on lower settings at 1280x720.
on my 7950gt, Batman AA makes around 45fps, mass effect trilogy 30fps, dead space trilogy i think was around 30fps, all on lower settings at 1280x720, Doom 3 maxed out at 720 was 55fps, also i was using a low end 2.6ghz core2duo which isnt the best.
i would say it would be perfect for a win2000/xp gaming build up to 2006, though you may be surprised by the fact it will run much later games, depending on the type of game.
ive found there are games released in the last couple of years that run on my 7950gt under DX9, some pretty good, your card with the extra vram and later features will probably give good performance especially if you pair it with a decent cpu. i would try it out with windows 7 x64 for the majority of games, and windows 10 for newer releases and see how it does.
DudeFace wrote on 2025-11-29, 15:07:i would say it would be perfect for a win2000/xp gaming build up to 2006, though you may be surprised by the fact it will run much later games, depending on the type of game.
ive found there are games released in the last couple of years that run on my 7950gt under DX9, some pretty good, your card with the extra vram and later features will probably give good performance especially if you pair it with a decent cpu. i would try it out with windows 7 x64 for the majority of games, and windows 10 for newer releases and see how it does.
OK. I shall give it a go on my workbench to see what it's like at gaming. I haven't tried using it for games, as I wasn't expecting it to be good at that. I didn't purposely buy it. It came bundled with some other stuff that I did want. I have validated that it works, but nothing beyond that.
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-11-29, 15:19:OK. I shall give it a go on my workbench to see what it's like at gaming. I haven't tried using it for games, as I wasn't expecting it to be good at that. I didn't purposely buy it. It came bundled with some other stuff that I did want. I have validated that it works, but nothing beyond that.
While I don't have that card, I do own a passively cooled 9500 GT.
Word of caution, those things get quite hot while under heavy load. You definitively want good case airflow when using such a card.
DudeFace wrote on 2025-11-29, 15:07:i would say its usable, ive got an 8400gs 512mb i've kept hold of, i only really use it for boards that dont have onboard video. […]
i would say its usable, ive got an 8400gs 512mb i've kept hold of, i only really use it for boards that dont have onboard video.
i know the 8600gt performance wise comes under a 7900gtx, so the 8500gt will come under that. infact ive just checked the 8500gt specs and it seems to be a beefed up 8400gs, with a larger bus twice the ram and ddr3 as opposed to ddr2.the 8600gt is the minimum requirement for games like Tomb raider 2013 and max payne 3 some of thoise cards only have 256mb of vram, so it would be interesting to see how the 8500gt handles those especially with 1gb, though you may still be looking at around 30fps on lower settings at 1280x720.
on my 7950gt, Batman AA makes around 45fps, mass effect trilogy 30fps, dead space trilogy i think was around 30fps, all on lower settings at 1280x720, Doom 3 maxed out at 720 was 55fps, also i was using a low end 2.6ghz core2duo which isnt the best.
i would say it would be perfect for a win2000/xp gaming build up to 2006, though you may be surprised by the fact it will run much later games, depending on the type of game.
ive found there are games released in the last couple of years that run on my 7950gt under DX9, some pretty good, your card with the extra vram and later features will probably give good performance especially if you pair it with a decent cpu. i would try it out with windows 7 x64 for the majority of games, and windows 10 for newer releases and see how it does.
I just benchmarked Doom3. At 1024x768 at Ultra settings it gets 50.4fps using the built in benchmark. Tombraider Legend from 2006 was just about playable at 1024x768 but certainly not smooth. This is on an AM2 motherboard with Athlon 64 X2 5600+ from December 2006.
This is under Windows 7 though, and the RAM is only 2gb single channel. I will try it under WinXP for a lighter OS and dig out a pair of RAM sticks so I can run dual channel.
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2025-11-29, 15:35:While I don't have that card, I do own a passively cooled 9500 GT.
Word of caution, those things get quite hot while under heavy load. You definitively want good case airflow when using such a card.
Thanks. I have pointed a 120mm fan at it while testing.
8500GT is horrible for PhysX. And with 1Gb I would guess that it has slow GDDR2 memory too, because no manufacturer would waste GDDR3 memory on such low-end card. And it also has a chip very prone to "Bumpgate" failure. So eh, I wouldn't bother.
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.
The Serpent Rider wrote on 2025-11-29, 18:25:8500GT is horrible for PhysX. And with 1Gb I would guess that it has slow GDDR2 memory too, because no manufacturer would waste GDDR3 memory on such low-end card. And it also has a chip very prone to "Bumpgate" failure. So eh, I wouldn't bother.
You are almost correct. It's DDR2, so even worse than GDDR2. When you say its horrible for PhysX, what would the symptoms of that be? Stuttering game? Animations not smooth?
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-11-29, 17:40:DudeFace wrote on 2025-11-29, 15:07:i would say its usable, ive got an 8400gs 512mb i've kept hold of, i only really use it for boards that dont have onboard video. […]
i would say its usable, ive got an 8400gs 512mb i've kept hold of, i only really use it for boards that dont have onboard video.
i know the 8600gt performance wise comes under a 7900gtx, so the 8500gt will come under that. infact ive just checked the 8500gt specs and it seems to be a beefed up 8400gs, with a larger bus twice the ram and ddr3 as opposed to ddr2.the 8600gt is the minimum requirement for games like Tomb raider 2013 and max payne 3 some of thoise cards only have 256mb of vram, so it would be interesting to see how the 8500gt handles those especially with 1gb, though you may still be looking at around 30fps on lower settings at 1280x720.
on my 7950gt, Batman AA makes around 45fps, mass effect trilogy 30fps, dead space trilogy i think was around 30fps, all on lower settings at 1280x720, Doom 3 maxed out at 720 was 55fps, also i was using a low end 2.6ghz core2duo which isnt the best.
i would say it would be perfect for a win2000/xp gaming build up to 2006, though you may be surprised by the fact it will run much later games, depending on the type of game.
ive found there are games released in the last couple of years that run on my 7950gt under DX9, some pretty good, your card with the extra vram and later features will probably give good performance especially if you pair it with a decent cpu. i would try it out with windows 7 x64 for the majority of games, and windows 10 for newer releases and see how it does.I just benchmarked Doom3. At 1024x768 at Ultra settings it gets 50.4fps using the built in benchmark. Tombraider Legend from 2006 was just about playable at 1024x768 but certainly not smooth. This is on an AM2 motherboard with Athlon 64 X2 5600+ from December 2006.
This is under Windows 7 though, and the RAM is only 2gb single channel. I will try it under WinXP for a lighter OS and dig out a pair of RAM sticks so I can run dual channel.
i'd say those numbers seem about right, i was using a pentium e5400 may have had it OC to 3.25ghz at the time, according to cpuuserbenchmark, the speed of the 5600+ is +7% over the e5400 so makes for a close comparison.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-P … 0-/m4475vsm2183
forgot to mention i was using 4gb ddr2 800mhz dual channel, and in doom3 i probably had the AA set low to either x2 or x4 possibly off (its about all the 7950gt can handle), but AF was probably turned up, i didnt run the benchmark just ran fraps in game it was minimum 50fps but no higher than 55 at 1280x720 using dhewm3 1.5.1.
with an extra 2gb ram and a slight overclock you may see quite a jump in performance.
as for physx a game i played through a while back was Hydrophobia prophecy, it was on my 7950gt with out a physx card, it only ran at 25-30fps anyway but anytime there was a lot of moving water on screen it crippled performance and fps dropped to 5.
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-11-29, 11:38:I am hesitant to throw it out, as I like the look of it. But I know it is a very under powered card for games of it's era. What, if anything, would you use this GPU for?
Why not turn it in for scrap if you are going to toss it out. might as well get a little from it. That being said you could play older games with it, an 8500gt would be good for games a GF4 or 5 would play.
It never had any practical gaming use. Even back in the day they could barely hold their own against the 7300GT DDR3. 512MB of RAM is already wasted on that card. I'd say it's good as a disposable test card if don't have a GT210 on hand.
RandomStranger wrote on 2025-11-29, 19:33:It never had any practical gaming use. Even back in the day they could barely hold their own against the 7300GT DDR3. 512MB of RAM is already wasted on that card. I'd say it's good as a disposable test card if don't have a GT210 on hand.
some of the GT210's are similarly specced to the GT220 1GB i have, i bought it new just as an upgrade to my onboard video, the first revision was a cut down 9600gs, mine is a rev2 which is a further cut down version with a different gpu using ddr2 memory, but according to techpowerup its slightly more powerful?
the gt220 is slightly more powerful than my 7950gt, i know the 9500gt is on par with a 7900gtx, so performance of the gimped GT220 is inbetween a 9500gt and a 9600gs a similar specced GT210 using the same gpu should be about the same, so not great for more demanding games but still very usable.
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-11-29, 18:37:When you say its horrible for PhysX, what would the symptoms of that be? Stuttering game? Animations not smooth?
Just not enough performance to provide stable framerate in majority of Nvidia PhysX titles.
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.
unluckybob wrote on 2025-11-29, 19:25:Why not turn it in for scrap if you are going to toss it out. might as well get a little from it. That being said you could play older games with it, an 8500gt would be good for games a GF4 or 5 would play.
I think I will keep it as a card to use for testing that motherboards are ok before putting in a GPU that is actually worth something.
You are correct that it could be used to play games that a GF4 or 5 would play. However, I think I am not being sensible by trying to find excuses to use it for gaming. The reality is that I already have GF4 and 5 cards that would make more sense for me to use for the games that this 8500 GT has the power to play.
Its main advantage is lack of noise. I also like how weighty the card is, and how it looks. So I think I don't want to get rid of it.
DudeFace wrote on 2025-11-29, 19:58:RandomStranger wrote on 2025-11-29, 19:33:It never had any practical gaming use. Even back in the day they could barely hold their own against the 7300GT DDR3. 512MB of RAM is already wasted on that card. I'd say it's good as a disposable test card if don't have a GT210 on hand.
some of the GT210's are similarly specced to the GT220 1GB i have, i bought it new just as an upgrade to my onboard video, the first revision was a cut down 9600gs, mine is a rev2 which is a further cut down version with a different gpu using ddr2 memory, but according to techpowerup its slightly more powerful?
Wha? No, no no. Very no.
The GT210 was a new chipset, the GT218 intended for notebooks. It has a performance lower or equal to the 9400GT/8500GT. I've never heard of any one running a GT216 GPU let alone G94. Unless some OEM manufacturers decided to mess around. They sometimes do with low end stuff.
As for techpowerup, their database is full of mistakes. Sometimes it's good to check with other sites.
RandomStranger wrote on 2025-11-29, 22:15:Wha? No, no no. Very no. […]
DudeFace wrote on 2025-11-29, 19:58:RandomStranger wrote on 2025-11-29, 19:33:It never had any practical gaming use. Even back in the day they could barely hold their own against the 7300GT DDR3. 512MB of RAM is already wasted on that card. I'd say it's good as a disposable test card if don't have a GT210 on hand.
some of the GT210's are similarly specced to the GT220 1GB i have, i bought it new just as an upgrade to my onboard video, the first revision was a cut down 9600gs, mine is a rev2 which is a further cut down version with a different gpu using ddr2 memory, but according to techpowerup its slightly more powerful?
Wha? No, no no. Very no.
The GT210 was a new chipset, the GT218 intended for notebooks. It has a performance lower or equal to the 9400GT/8500GT. I've never heard of any one running a GT216 GPU let alone G94. Unless some OEM manufacturers decided to mess around. They sometimes do with low end stuff.
As for techpowerup, their database is full of mistakes. Sometimes it's good to check with other sites.
i was incorrect when i said the 210 and gt220 were similarly specced, i noticed the 210 OEM uses the same GT216 as my GT220 so assumed they were the same card but rebranded, i didnt realise it was another massively cut down version yet again. as for the G94 i was talking about the first revision of the GT220 not the 210.
also you're right techpowerup shows the 9400gt is slightly more powerful than the 210.
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-11-29, 21:59:I think I will keep it as a card to use for testing that motherboards are ok before putting in a GPU that is actually worth something.
You are correct that it could be used to play games that a GF4 or 5 would play. However, I think I am not being sensible by trying to find excuses to use it for gaming. The reality is that I already have GF4 and 5 cards that would make more sense for me to use for the games that this 8500 GT has the power to play.
Its main advantage is lack of noise. I also like how weighty the card is, and how it looks. So I think I don't want to get rid of it.
wile not in this case it is worth noting that using a newer lower end card in place of a older high end part will have a much lower heat output and power draw. I'm myself a big fan of using newer lower end cards to play games as it takes a lot of headache out of things
unluckybob wrote on 2025-11-30, 06:46:wile not in this case it is worth noting that using a newer lower end card in place of a older high end part will have a much lower heat output and power draw. I'm myself a big fan of using newer lower end cards to play games as it takes a lot of headache out of things
Yes, that does make sense. Though, I think it does depend what system you are running it on. Newer drivers, required for newer generation GPUs, seem to be more bloated than older drivers. So if run on a slower system, a newer GPU can perform worse than an older one, despite being more powerful.
Anyhow, I have now swapped a single stick of 2gb DDR2 667 with two sticks of 1Gb DDR2 800. DOOM 3 has gone up from 50.4FPS to 54.4FPS. That's on Ultra settings, but only at 1024x768.
Arkham Asylum from 2006 also seems to work OK at low settings @1024x768
