GeForce GT 755M vs GTX 660

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 660 with GeForce GT 755M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 660
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 140 Watt
10.43
+137%

GTX 660 outperforms GT 755M by a whopping 137% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking439670
Place by popularity81not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.40no data
Power efficiency5.146.07
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGK106GK107
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date6 September 2012 (12 years ago)25 June 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 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 cores960384
Core clock speed980 MHz980 MHz
Boost clock speed1033 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,540 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)140 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate82.5631.36
Floating-point processing power1.981 TFLOPS0.7526 TFLOPS
ROPs2416
TMUs8032

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length241 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataGDDR5
Memory bus width192-bit GDDR5128 Bit
Memory clock speed6.0 GB/s1350 MHz
Memory bandwidth144.2 GB/s86.4 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
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMI++
HDCP+-
HDCP content protection-+
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI-+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming-+

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray+-
Blu-Ray 3D Support-+
3D Gaming+-
3D Vision+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+
3D Vision / 3DTV Play-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 API
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.34.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.126
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 660 10.43
+137%
GT 755M 4.40

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 660 4010
+137%
GT 755M 1693

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.

GTX 660 5040
+139%
GT 755M 2106

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 660 11361
+130%
GT 755M 4933

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

GTX 660 11378
+169%
GT 755M 4226

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

GTX 660 33
+136%
GT 755M 14

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:

900p130−140
+132%
56
−132%
Full HD47
+114%
22
−114%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.87no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Elden Ring 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Elden Ring 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
World of Tanks 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Elden Ring 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
World of Tanks 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how GTX 660 and GT 755M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 660 is 132% faster in 900p
  • GTX 660 is 114% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.43 4.40
Recency 6 September 2012 25 June 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 140 Watt 50 Watt

GTX 660 has a 137% higher aggregate performance score.

GT 755M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months, and 180% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 660 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 755M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 660 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 755M 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
GeForce GTX 660
NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M
GeForce GT 755M

Other comparisons

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.


3.7 4361 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 78 votes

Rate GeForce GT 755M 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.