GeForce GTX 660 OEM vs 570
Aggregated performance score
570 outperforms 660 OEM by 204% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 409 | 698 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 10.61 | 0.08 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 December 2010 (13 years ago) | 22 August 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $349 | no data |
| Current price | $12.99 (0x MSRP) | $481 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 570 has 13163% better value for money than GTX 660 OEM.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 480 | 1152 |
| CUDA cores | 480 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 732 MHz | 823 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 888 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 43.9 billion/sec | 85.25 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,405.4 gflops | 2,046 gflops |
Size and 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 | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | 241 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | Two 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1900 MHz (3800 data rate) | 5600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 152.0 GB/s | 179.2 GB/s |
Video outputs and ports
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 | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 3.0 |
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 | 80
+233%
| 24−27
−233%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+260%
|
10−11
−260%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+225%
|
8−9
−225%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+260%
|
10−11
−260%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+225%
|
8−9
−225%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+260%
|
10−11
−260%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 570 and GTX 660 OEM compete in popular games:
- GTX 570 is 233% faster than GTX 660 OEM in 1080p
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 10.14 | 3.34 |
| Recency | 7 December 2010 | 22 August 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 130 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 570 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 660 OEM in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
