Radeon R9 M375 vs GeForce GTX 660 Ti

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

GTX 660 Ti
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
11.42
+351%

GeForce GTX 660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 M375 by a whopping 351% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking387793
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.670.05
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN (2011−2017)
GPU code nameGK104Tropo
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date16 August 2012 (11 years ago)7 May 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$299 no data
Current price$189 (0.6x MSRP)$1699

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 660 Ti has 5240% better value for money than R9 M375.

Detailed specifications

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 cores1344640
CUDA cores1344no data
Compute unitsno data10
Core clock speed915 MHz1015 MHz
Boost clock speed980 MHz1015 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Wattno data
Texture fill rate102.5 billion/sec40.60
Floating-point performance2,459.5 gflops1,299 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 660 Ti and Radeon R9 M375 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0PCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length9.5" (24.1 cm)no data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsTwo 6-pinno data
SLI options+no data

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width192-bit GDDR5128 Bit
Memory clock speed6.0 GB/s1100 MHz
Memory bandwidth144.2 GB/s28.8 GB/s
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 ConnectorsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPortNo outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
Eyefinityno data1
HDMI+no data
HDCP+no data
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

AppAccelerationno data+
Endurono data-
FreeSyncno data1
HD3Dno data+
PowerTuneno data+
DualGraphicsno data1
TrueAudiono data-
ZeroCoreno data+
Switchable graphicsno data1
3D Blu-Ray+no data
3D Gaming+no data
3D Vision+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)DirectX® 12
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.34.4
OpenCL1.2Not Listed
Vulkan1.1.126no data
Mantleno data+
CUDA+no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 660 Ti 11.42
+351%
R9 M375 2.53

GeForce GTX 660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 M375 by 351% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 660 Ti 4413
+351%
R9 M375 979

GeForce GTX 660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 M375 by 351% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 660 Ti 8415
+154%
R9 M375 3314

GeForce GTX 660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 M375 by 154% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 660 Ti 23726
+187%
R9 M375 8275

GeForce GTX 660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 M375 by 187% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 660 Ti 5432
+226%
R9 M375 1667

GeForce GTX 660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 M375 by 226% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 660 Ti 37758
+346%
R9 M375 8466

GeForce GTX 660 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 M375 by 346% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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 HD81
+224%
25
−224%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+260%
5−6
−260%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+1100%
3−4
−1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+260%
5−6
−260%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+700%
4−5
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+333%
9−10
−333%
Hitman 3 24−27
+333%
6−7
−333%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+147%
14−16
−147%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+3300%
1−2
−3300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+433%
6−7
−433%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+167%
12−14
−167%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+1100%
3−4
−1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+260%
5−6
−260%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+700%
4−5
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+333%
9−10
−333%
Hitman 3 24−27
+333%
6−7
−333%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+147%
14−16
−147%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+3300%
1−2
−3300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+433%
6−7
−433%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+167%
12−14
−167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+283%
6−7
−283%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+260%
5−6
−260%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+333%
9−10
−333%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+147%
14−16
−147%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+3300%
1−2
−3300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+283%
6−7
−283%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+433%
6−7
−433%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%
Far Cry New Dawn 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Hitman 3 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+350%
4−5
−350%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+229%
7−8
−229%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7 0−1

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Hitman 3 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%

This is how GTX 660 Ti and R9 M375 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 660 Ti is 224% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 660 Ti is 3300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 660 Ti surpassed R9 M375 in all 55 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.42 2.53
Recency 16 August 2012 7 May 2015
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB

The GeForce GTX 660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M375 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 660 Ti is a desktop card while Radeon R9 M375 is a notebook one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti
GeForce GTX 660 Ti
AMD Radeon R9 M375
Radeon R9 M375

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 770 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 660 Ti on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 49 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M375 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.