ATI Radeon HD 5770 vs GeForce GTX 660M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 660M with Radeon HD 5770, including specs and performance data.
HD 5770 outperforms 660M by a moderate 18% 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 | 777 | 732 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.78 |
| Power efficiency | 5.33 | 2.90 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | Juniper |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (13 years ago) | 13 October 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $159 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 384 | 800 |
| Core clock speed | 835 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 1,040 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.40 | 34.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7296 TFLOPS | 1.36 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
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 | 208 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 4800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.0 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |
| 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| 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 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| 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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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
+25%
| 24
−25%
|
| Full HD | 35
−42.9%
| 50
+42.9%
|
| 1200p | 38
−5.3%
| 40−45
+5.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.18 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
−20%
|
24−27
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−17.6%
|
20−22
+17.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−7.8%
|
55−60
+7.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 89
+21.9%
|
70−75
−21.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−12.1%
|
35−40
+12.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
−20%
|
24−27
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−17.6%
|
20−22
+17.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−7.8%
|
55−60
+7.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−12.1%
|
35−40
+12.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−17.6%
|
20−22
+17.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−7.8%
|
55−60
+7.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
−20%
|
24−27
+20%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−19.2%
|
30−35
+19.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−10%
|
30−35
+10%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−22.9%
|
40−45
+22.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−17.6%
|
20−22
+17.6%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 660M and ATI HD 5770 compete in popular games:
- GTX 660M is 25% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 5770 is 43% faster in 1080p
- ATI HD 5770 is 5% faster in 1200p
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 22% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the ATI HD 5770 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 660M performs better in 1 test (2%)
- ATI HD 5770 performs better in 53 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (8%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.47 | 4.08 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 13 October 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 108 Watt |
GTX 660M has an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 116% lower power consumption.
ATI HD 5770, on the other hand, has a 17.6% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon HD 5770 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 660M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 660M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 5770 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
