GeForce4 4200 Go vs GeForce GTX 660M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 660M and GeForce4 4200 Go, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
660M outperforms GeForce4 4200 Go by a whopping 34600% 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 | 782 | 1590 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.34 | no data |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | no data |
| GPU code name | GK107 | NV28M |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (14 years ago) | 15 November 2002 (23 years ago) |
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 | 6 |
| Core clock speed | 835 MHz | 2 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | 200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 150 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 30.40 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7296 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 32 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 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).
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | 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 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs | no data |
| 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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | DDR |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| 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:
| 900p | 30 | -0−1 |
| Full HD | 35 | -0−1 |
| 1200p | 38 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 5−6 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+122%
|
21−24
−122%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 89
+889%
|
9−10
−889%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+371%
|
7−8
−371%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+122%
|
21−24
−122%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+371%
|
7−8
−371%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+122%
|
21−24
−122%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 35−40 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 16−18 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 660M is 889% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 660M surpassed GeForce4 4200 Go in all 19 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.47 | 0.01 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 15 November 2002 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 150 nm |
GTX 660M has a 34600% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 436% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 660M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce4 4200 Go 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.
