GeForce 8800 GTS 512 vs GTX 660M

Place in the ranking	700	980
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.03
Power efficiency	5.18	0.75
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GK107	G92
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	22 March 2012 (12 years ago)	11 December 2007 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$349

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 cores	384	128
Core clock speed	835 MHz	650 MHz
Boost clock speed	950 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,270 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	135 Watt
Texture fill rate	30.40	41.60
Floating-point processing power	0.7296 TFLOPS	0.416 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	32	64

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	large	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	254 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 6-pin
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	1 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	2000 MHz	820 MHz
Memory bandwidth	64.0 GB/s	52.48 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 Connectors	No outputs	2x DVI, 1x S-Video
HDMI	+	-
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	Up to 2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	+	1.1

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 660M 3.74
+154%

8800 GTS 512 1.47

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 660M 1444
+154%

8800 GTS 512 568

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:

900p	32 +167%	12−14 −167%
Full HD	34 +183%	12−14 −183%
1200p	38 +171%	14−16 −171%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

29.08

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

7−8
+250%

2−3

−250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Battlefield 5	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +175%	8−9 −175%
Hitman 3	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +160%	10−11 −160%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +163%	16−18 −163%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Battlefield 5	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +175%	8−9 −175%
Hitman 3	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +160%	10−11 −160%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +163%	16−18 −163%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +175%	8−9 −175%
Hitman 3	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +160%	10−11 −160%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +163%	16−18 −163%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+200%

3−4

−200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24 +156%	9−10 −156%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+250%

2−3

−250%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+400%

1−2

−400%

This is how GTX 660M and 8800 GTS 512 compete in popular games:

GTX 660M is 167% faster in 900p
GTX 660M is 183% faster in 1080p
GTX 660M is 171% faster in 1200p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.74	1.47
Recency	22 March 2012	11 December 2007
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	135 Watt

GTX 660M has a 154.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 170% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 660M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GTS 512 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 660M is a notebook card while GeForce 8800 GTS 512 is a desktop one.

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