GeForce GTX 660 vs Radeon 840M

Place in the ranking	538	502
Place by popularity	not in top-100	100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	3.11
Power efficiency	45.90	5.37
Architecture	RDNA 3.5 (2025−2026)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	Krackan Point	GK106
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	March 2025 (1 year ago)	6 September 2012 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	256	960
Core clock speed	400 MHz	980 MHz
Boost clock speed	2900 MHz	1033 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	2,540 million
Manufacturing process technology	4 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	140 Watt
Texture fill rate	46.40	82.56
Floating-point processing power	no data	1.981 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	24
TMUs	16	80
Ray Tracing Cores	4	no data
L0 Cache	64 KB	no data
L1 Cache	64 KB	80 KB
L2 Cache	1024 KB	384 KB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Bus support	no data	PCI Express 3.0
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	241 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin
SLI options	-	+

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	System Shared	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	2 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	192-bit GDDR5
Memory clock speed	System Shared	6.0 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	no data	144.2 GB/s
Shared memory	+	-

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors	Portable Device Dependent	One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	no data	4 displays
HDMI	-	+
HDCP	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Blu-Ray	-	+
3D Gaming	-	+
3D Vision	-	+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.8	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.3
OpenCL	2.1	1.2
Vulkan	1.4	1.1.126
CUDA	-	+

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

Radeon 840M 8.89

GTX 660 9.72
+9.3%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Radeon 840M 3705
Samples: 811

GTX 660 4049
+9.3%

Samples: 16623

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Radeon 840M 4536

GTX 660 5040
+11.1%

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Radeon 840M 12

GTX 660 33
+175%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD

−114%

47
+114%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

4.87

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2	84 −7.1%	90−95 +7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Palworld	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	68 −2.9%	70−75 +2.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −3.4%	30−33 +3.4%
Fortnite	50−55 −1.9%	55−60 +1.9%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
Palworld	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +6.7%	30−33 −6.7%
Valorant	85−90 −8%	95−100 +8%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	15 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	130−140 −8.7%	150−160 +8.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −3.4%	30−33 +3.4%
Fortnite	50−55 −1.9%	55−60 +1.9%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	32 +6.7%	30−33 −6.7%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Palworld	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +6.7%	30−33 −6.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	23 −4.3%	24−27 +4.3%
Valorant	85−90 −8%	95−100 +8%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −3.4%	30−33 +3.4%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +6.7%	30−33 −6.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	15 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite	50−55 −1.9%	55−60 +1.9%
Palworld	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	65−70 −2.9%	70−75 +2.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Valorant	90−95 −4.4%	95−100 +4.4%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite	18−20 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%
Palworld	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Palworld	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Valorant	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Palworld	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

This is how Radeon 840M and GTX 660 compete in popular games:

GTX 660 is 114% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.89	9.72
Chip lithography	4 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	140 Watt

Radeon 840M has a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 833% lower power consumption.

GTX 660, on the other hand, has a 9% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon 840M and GeForce GTX 660.

Be aware that Radeon 840M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 660 is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

NVIDIA PRO 4000 Blackwell

X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS

NVIDIA PRO 4000 Blackwell

Apple 20 core GPU

8060S

NVIDIA PRO 6000 Blackwell

M295X Mac Edition

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.8 30 votes

Rate Radeon 840M on a scale of 1 to 5:

3.7 4907 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 660 on a scale of 1 to 5:

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon 840M or GeForce GTX 660, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.