Radeon E6760 vs GeForce GTX 660
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 660 and Radeon E6760, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 660 outperforms E6760 by a whopping 377% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 495 | 930 |
| Place by popularity | 87 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.07 | 0.13 |
| Power efficiency | 5.32 | 3.47 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GK106 | Turks |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 September 2012 (13 years ago) | 2 May 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | $239.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 660 has 2262% better value for money than Radeon E6760.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 960 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1033 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,540 million | 716 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 82.56 | 14.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.981 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 24 | 8 |
| TMUs | 80 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 384 KB | no data |
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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192-bit GDDR5 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | 3200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.2 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | no data |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
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 | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.0 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 | 47
+422%
| 9−10
−422%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.87
+447%
| 26.67
−447%
|
- GTX 660 has 447% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.68 | 2.03 |
| Recency | 6 September 2012 | 2 May 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 45 Watt |
GTX 660 has a 377% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
Radeon E6760, on the other hand, has 211% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon E6760 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
