Radeon R9 M295X vs GeForce GTX 660
Aggregated performance score
Radeon R9 M295X outperforms GeForce GTX 660 by 29% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 403 | 356 |
| Place by popularity | 72 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 2.36 | no data |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 3 (2014−2016) |
| GPU code name | GK106 | Tonga |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 September 2012 (11 years ago) | 16 October 2014 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | no data |
| Current price | $172 (0.8x MSRP) | no data |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 cores | 960 | 2048 |
| CUDA cores | 960 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 723 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1033 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,540 million | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 78.4 billion/sec | 92.54 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,981 gflops | 2,961 gflops |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 660 and Radeon R9 M295X 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 size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 9.5" (24.1 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | One 6-pin | None |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | Not Listed |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 0 MB |
| Memory bus width | 192-bit GDDR5 | Not Listed |
| Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.2 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported GPU Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | - |
| Enduro | no data | - |
| FreeSync | no data | 1 |
| HD3D | no data | + |
| PowerTune | no data | + |
| DualGraphics | no data | 1 |
| TrueAudio | no data | - |
| ZeroCore | no data | + |
| Switchable graphics | no data | 1 |
| 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.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | Not Listed |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | Not Listed |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | no data |
| Mantle | no 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.
Radeon R9 M295X outperforms GeForce GTX 660 by 29% based on our aggregated 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%
Radeon R9 M295X outperforms GeForce GTX 660 by 29% in Passmark.
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%
Radeon R9 M295X outperforms GeForce GTX 660 by 31% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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
−2.1%
| 48
+2.1%
|
| 4K | 24−27
−29.2%
| 31
+29.2%
|
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 10.33 | 13.30 |
| Recency | 6 September 2012 | 16 October 2014 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 250 Watt |
The Radeon R9 M295X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 660 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 660 is a desktop card while Radeon R9 M295X is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
