Radeon 660M vs GeForce GTX 480M SLI

Place in the ranking	580	565
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	4.47	11.85
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	N11E-GTX-A3	Rembrandt+
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	25 May 2010 (14 years ago)	3 January 2023 (2 years ago)

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	704	384
Core clock speed	425 MHz	1500 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1900 MHz
Number of transistors	6000 Million	13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	40 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	45.60
Floating-point processing power	no data	1.459 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	16
TMUs	no data	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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	no data	PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	1200 MHz	System Shared
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

no data

Portable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	no data	6.7
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	2.0
Vulkan	-	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.

GTX 480M SLI 6.41

Radeon 660M 6.80
+6.1%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 480M SLI 4229

Radeon 660M 6743
+59.4%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTX 480M SLI 16500

Radeon 660M 23222
+40.7%

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:

900p	61 +1.7%	60−65 −1.7%
Full HD	65 +171%	24 −171%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −84.6%	24 +84.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	20−22 −10%	21−24 +10%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −30.8%	17 +30.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +30%	10 −30%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −55.6%	42 +55.6%
Forza Horizon 5	14−16 −114%	30 +114%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −88.2%	32 +88.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 −5.3%	20−22 +5.3%
Valorant	21−24 −63.6%	36 +63.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	20−22 −10%	21−24 +10%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +18.2%	11 −18.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +85.7%	7 −85.7%
Dota 2	21−24 −59.1%	35 +59.1%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +0%	29 +0%
Fortnite	35−40 −7.9%	40−45 +7.9%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −22.2%	33 +22.2%
Forza Horizon 5	14−16 −14.3%	16−18 +14.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 −13.6%	25 +13.6%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −17.6%	20 +17.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 −5.7%	55−60 +5.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 −5.3%	20−22 +5.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
Valorant	21−24 +15.8%	19 −15.8%
World of Tanks	100−110 −4.9%	100−110 +4.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	20−22 −10%	21−24 +10%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +44.4%	9 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
Dota 2	21−24 −118%	48 +118%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −6.9%	30−35 +6.9%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −3.7%	28 +3.7%
Forza Horizon 5	14−16 −14.3%	16−18 +14.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 −5.7%	55−60 +5.7%
Valorant	21−24 −9.1%	24−27 +9.1%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −2.7%	35−40 +2.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
World of Tanks	45−50 −6.4%	50−55 +6.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −8.3%	12−14 +8.3%
Forza Horizon 5	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Metro Exodus	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Valorant	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	18−20 −5.3%	20−22 +5.3%
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	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Fortnite	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Valorant	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

This is how GTX 480M SLI and Radeon 660M compete in popular games:

GTX 480M SLI is 2% faster in 900p
GTX 480M SLI is 171% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 480M SLI is 86% faster.
in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 660M is 118% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 480M SLI is ahead in 5 tests (8%)
Radeon 660M is ahead in 40 tests (63%)
there's a draw in 18 tests (29%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.41	6.80
Recency	25 May 2010	3 January 2023
Chip lithography	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	40 Watt

Radeon 660M has a 6.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 566.7% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 480M SLI and Radeon 660M.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.