Radeon RX 580 2048SP vs GeForce GTX 660M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 660M with Radeon RX 580 2048SP, including specs and performance data.
RX 580 2048SP outperforms GTX 660M by a whopping 429% 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 | 285 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 50 |
| Power efficiency | 5.20 | 9.16 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | Polaris 20 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 15 October 2018 (6 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 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 835 MHz | 1168 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | 1284 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.40 | 164.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7296 TFLOPS | 5.259 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 128 |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.0 GB/s | 224.0 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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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
−400%
| 160−170
+400%
|
| Full HD | 35
−414%
| 180−190
+414%
|
| 1200p | 38
−426%
| 200−210
+426%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−400%
|
50−55
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−400%
|
75−80
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−400%
|
60−65
+400%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−400%
|
50−55
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−400%
|
55−60
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−400%
|
100−105
+400%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−400%
|
110−120
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−400%
|
75−80
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
−400%
|
55−60
+400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−415%
|
170−180
+415%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−400%
|
60−65
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−400%
|
65−70
+400%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
| World of Tanks | 89
−406%
|
450−500
+406%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−400%
|
50−55
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−400%
|
55−60
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−400%
|
100−105
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−400%
|
75−80
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−415%
|
170−180
+415%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−400%
|
130−140
+400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
−400%
|
130−140
+400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−400%
|
55−60
+400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−400%
|
80−85
+400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−400%
|
80−85
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−400%
|
55−60
+400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−400%
|
80−85
+400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−400%
|
80−85
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
This is how GTX 660M and RX 580 2048SP compete in popular games:
- RX 580 2048SP is 400% faster in 900p
- RX 580 2048SP is 414% faster in 1080p
- RX 580 2048SP is 426% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.62 | 19.15 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 15 October 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 150 Watt |
GTX 660M has 200% lower power consumption.
RX 580 2048SP, on the other hand, has a 429% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 580 2048SP 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 Radeon RX 580 2048SP 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.
