GeForce GTX 660 vs Radeon Pro W5700
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W5700 with GeForce GTX 660, including specs and performance data.
Pro W5700 outperforms GTX 660 by a whopping 250% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 174 | 508 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 13.87 | 3.11 |
| Power efficiency | 12.82 | 5.37 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | GK106 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 19 November 2019 (6 years ago) | 6 September 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | $229 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Pro W5700 has 346% better value for money than GTX 660.
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 | 2304 | 960 |
| Core clock speed | 1400 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1880 MHz | 1033 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 2,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 140 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 270.7 | 82.56 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.981 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 24 |
| TMUs | 144 | 80 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 241 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192-bit GDDR5 |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 6.0 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 144.2 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 | 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | 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 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 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.
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.
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 | 160−170
+240%
| 47
−240%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.99
−2.5%
| 4.87
+2.5%
|
- Pro W5700 and GTX 660 have nearly equal cost per frame in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 33.96 | 9.71 |
| Recency | 19 November 2019 | 6 September 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 205 Watt | 140 Watt |
Pro W5700 has a 250% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 660, on the other hand, has 46% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W5700 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 660 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W5700 is a workstation 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.
