GeForce RTX 5080 vs GTX 660M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 660M with GeForce RTX 5080, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5080 outperforms GTX 660M by a whopping 2428% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 716 | 3 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 41.15 |
| Power efficiency | 5.21 | 18.29 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | GB203 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 30 January 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | 835 MHz | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | 2617 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 360 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.40 | 879.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7296 TFLOPS | 56.28 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 128 |
| TMUs | 32 | 336 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 84 |
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 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 304 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-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 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1875 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.0 GB/s | 960.0 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | + | 10.1 |
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.
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:
| 900p | 32
−2400%
| 800−850
+2400%
|
| Full HD | 35
−451%
| 193
+451%
|
| 1200p | 38
−2400%
| 950−1000
+2400%
|
| 1440p | 6−7
−2467%
| 154
+2467%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−2450%
| 102
+2450%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.18 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.49 |
| 4K | no data | 9.79 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−1508%
|
200−210
+1508%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−2344%
|
220−230
+2344%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−1070%
|
110−120
+1070%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−1508%
|
200−210
+1508%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−2344%
|
220−230
+2344%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−2253%
|
400−450
+2253%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−5480%
|
270−280
+5480%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−2175%
|
180−190
+2175%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−1200%
|
150−160
+1200%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−8463%
|
650−700
+8463%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−1070%
|
110−120
+1070%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−1508%
|
200−210
+1508%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−2344%
|
220−230
+2344%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−1491%
|
170−180
+1491%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−685%
|
157
+685%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−1300%
|
300−350
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−2253%
|
400−450
+2253%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−5480%
|
270−280
+5480%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
−2355%
|
270−280
+2355%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−2175%
|
180−190
+2175%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−552%
|
210−220
+552%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−1200%
|
150−160
+1200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−1238%
|
170−180
+1238%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−8463%
|
650−700
+8463%
|
| World of Tanks | 89
−213%
|
270−280
+213%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−1070%
|
110−120
+1070%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−1608%
|
222
+1608%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−2344%
|
220−230
+2344%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−2355%
|
270−280
+2355%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−805%
|
180−190
+805%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−2253%
|
400−450
+2253%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−5480%
|
270−280
+5480%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−552%
|
210−220
+552%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−8463%
|
650−700
+8463%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1638%
|
130−140
+1638%
|
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−5500%
|
160−170
+5500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−2400%
|
75−80
+2400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−2400%
|
650−700
+2400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−3000%
|
90−95
+3000%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
−1885%
|
500−550
+1885%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−1640%
|
85−90
+1640%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2400%
|
100−105
+2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−1678%
|
160−170
+1678%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2400%
|
100−105
+2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−4220%
|
210−220
+4220%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−2329%
|
170−180
+2329%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−4700%
|
500−550
+4700%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1069%
|
180−190
+1069%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−2400%
|
400−450
+2400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1800%
|
200−210
+1800%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−3100%
|
60−65
+3100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−2400%
|
400−450
+2400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−2933%
|
90−95
+2933%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−2400%
|
400−450
+2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−2525%
|
100−110
+2525%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−3100%
|
95−100
+3100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−7000%
|
140−150
+7000%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−10400%
|
300−350
+10400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Metro Exodus | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
This is how GTX 660M and RTX 5080 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5080 is 2400% faster in 900p
- RTX 5080 is 451% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5080 is 2400% faster in 1200p
- RTX 5080 is 2467% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5080 is 2450% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 5080 is 10400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 5080 is ahead in 41 test (91%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.69 | 93.29 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 30 January 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 360 Watt |
GTX 660M has 620% lower power consumption.
RTX 5080, on the other hand, has a 2428.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5080 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 660M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 660M is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 5080 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
