GeForce GT 230M vs GTX 660 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 660 Ti with GeForce GT 230M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 660 Ti outperforms GT 230M by a whopping 1945% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 426 | 1225 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.19 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.25 | 1.67 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GT216 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 16 August 2012 (12 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | 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 | 1344 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 109.8 | 8.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.634 TFLOPS | 0.1056 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 158 |
| ROPs | 24 | 8 |
| TMUs | 112 | 16 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no data |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | Up to 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192-bit GDDR5 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 800 (GDDR3), Up to 1066 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.2 GB/s | 16 (DDR2), 25 (DDR3) |
| 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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | Dual Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMISingle Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | HDA |
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 | + | - |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| 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.
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.
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.
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 | 77
+2467%
| 3−4
−2467%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.88 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+2033%
|
3−4
−2033%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1050%
|
4−5
−1050%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+443%
|
7−8
−443%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+254%
|
27−30
−254%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 192
+1029%
|
16−18
−1029%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+582%
|
10−12
−582%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+2033%
|
3−4
−2033%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1050%
|
4−5
−1050%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+443%
|
7−8
−443%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+600%
|
4−5
−600%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+254%
|
27−30
−254%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+582%
|
10−12
−582%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1050%
|
4−5
−1050%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+443%
|
7−8
−443%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+600%
|
4−5
−600%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+254%
|
27−30
−254%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 60−65
+2033%
|
3−4
−2033%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+8100%
|
1−2
−8100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+1867%
|
3−4
−1867%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+2260%
|
5−6
−2260%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+46.7%
|
14−16
−46.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 55−60
+1800%
|
3−4
−1800%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
This is how GTX 660 Ti and GT 230M compete in popular games:
- GTX 660 Ti is 2467% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 660 Ti is 8100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 660 Ti surpassed GT 230M in all 35 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.45 | 0.56 |
| Recency | 16 August 2012 | 15 June 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 23 Watt |
GTX 660 Ti has a 1944.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 230M, on the other hand, has 552.2% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 230M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 660 Ti is a desktop card while GeForce GT 230M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
