Radeon 660M vs GeForce GTX 295

Place in the ranking	755	329
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.12	no data
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2023)
GPU code name	GT200B	Rembrandt+
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	8 January 2009 (15 years ago)	3 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$500	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	240	384
CUDA cores	480	no data
CUDA cores per GPU	240	no data
Core clock speed	576 MHz	1500 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1900 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	289 Watt	40 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	46.08	45.60
Floating-point processing power	0.5962 TFLOPS	1.459 TFLOPS
ROPs	28	16
TMUs	80	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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	267 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	None
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	GDDR3	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	1792 MB	System Shared
Standard memory config per GPU	896 MB	no data
Memory bus width	896 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	999 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	223.8 GB/s	no data
Memory interface width per GPU	448 Bit	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	Two Dual Link DVIHDMI	Portable Device Dependent
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

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

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)

128bit

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.0	6.7
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	+	-

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.

GTX 295 3.13

Radeon 660M 16.30
+421%

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.

GTX 295 1206

Radeon 660M 6285
+421%

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

4−5

−500%

24
+500%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	26 +0%	26 +0%
Battlefield 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	20 +0%	20 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Hitman 3	21 +0%	21 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	19 +0%	19 +0%
Battlefield 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 +0%	14 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Hitman 3	21 +0%	21 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	33 +0%	33 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Hitman 3	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	22 +0%	22 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27 +0%	27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	15 +0%	15 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30

+0%

27−30

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

+0%

16−18

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

+0%

9−10

+0%

This is how GTX 295 and Radeon 660M compete in popular games:

Radeon 660M is 500% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.13	16.30
Recency	8 January 2009	3 January 2023
Chip lithography	55 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	289 Watt	40 Watt

Radeon 660M has a 420.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 816.7% more advanced lithography process, and 622.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 660M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 295 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 295 is a desktop 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.