Radeon 660M vs FirePro W8000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W8000 with Radeon 660M, including specs and performance data.
W8000 outperforms 660M by an impressive 57% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 431 | 568 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.14 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.32 | 11.88 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | Rembrandt+ |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,599 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1792 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 100.8 | 45.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.226 TFLOPS | 1.459 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 112 | 24 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 6 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 279 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Form factor | full height / full length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 176 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort, 1x SDI | Portable Device Dependent |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
| DisplayPort count | 4 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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 | 35−40
+40%
| 25
−40%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 45.69 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Valorant | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
This is how FirePro W8000 and Radeon 660M compete in popular games:
- FirePro W8000 is 40% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.46 | 6.65 |
| Recency | 14 June 2012 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 40 Watt |
FirePro W8000 has a 57.3% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 660M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 462.5% lower power consumption.
The FirePro W8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 660M in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W8000 is a workstation card while Radeon 660M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
