GeForce Go 6600 vs GTX 980 Mobile

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 980 Mobile and GeForce Go 6600, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 980 Mobile
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
21.60
+11900%

GTX 980 Mobile outperforms Go 6600 by a whopping 11900% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking2571406
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation19.85no data
Power efficiency7.43no data
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameGM204NV43 A2
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date21 September 2015 (9 years ago)29 September 2005 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$395.82 no data

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 cores204812
Core clock speed1064 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1216 MHz375 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million146 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm110 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100-200 Wattno data
Texture fill rate136.22.400
Floating-point processing power4.358 TFLOPSno data
ROPs644
TMUs1288

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)MXM-II
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 typeGDDR5DDR
Maximum RAM amount4 GB256 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s350 MHz
Memory bandwidth224 GB/s11.2 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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2No outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC support+-
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
BatteryBoost+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.43.0
OpenGL4.52.1
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA+-

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:

Full HD970−1
4K48-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.08no data
4K8.25no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+388%
8−9
−388%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+2050%
2−3
−2050%
Elden Ring 65−70 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+388%
8−9
−388%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+2050%
2−3
−2050%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+1740%
5−6
−1740%
Metro Exodus 55−60 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+1125%
4−5
−1125%
Valorant 85−90 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+388%
8−9
−388%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+2050%
2−3
−2050%
Dota 2 56 0−1
Elden Ring 65−70 0−1
Far Cry 5 70−75
+1067%
6−7
−1067%
Fortnite 110−120 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+1740%
5−6
−1740%
Grand Theft Auto V 84 0−1
Metro Exodus 55−60 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
+2740%
5−6
−2740%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+1125%
4−5
−1125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 81
+1925%
4−5
−1925%
Valorant 85−90 0−1
World of Tanks 240−250
+2091%
10−12
−2091%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+388%
8−9
−388%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+2050%
2−3
−2050%
Dota 2 75−80 0−1
Far Cry 5 70−75
+1067%
6−7
−1067%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+1740%
5−6
−1740%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
+2740%
5−6
−2740%
Valorant 85−90 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 35−40 0−1
Elden Ring 35−40 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+17200%
1−2
−17200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22 0−1
World of Tanks 140−150
+14400%
1−2
−14400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+1400%
4−5
−1400%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60 0−1
Metro Exodus 45−50 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33
+1400%
2−3
−1400%
Valorant 55−60
+1325%
4−5
−1325%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 18−20 0−1
Dota 2 60
+300%
14−16
−300%
Elden Ring 16−18 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 60
+300%
14−16
−300%
Metro Exodus 16−18 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60
+300%
14−16
−300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 18−20 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Dota 2 35−40
+147%
14−16
−147%
Far Cry 5 27−30 0−1
Fortnite 24−27 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 30−35 0−1
Valorant 27−30 0−1

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 980 Mobile is 17200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 980 Mobile surpassed Go 6600 in all 30 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.60 0.18
Recency 21 September 2015 29 September 2005
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 110 nm

GTX 980 Mobile has a 11900% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 292.9% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 6600 in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Mobile
GeForce GTX 980 Mobile
NVIDIA GeForce Go 6600
GeForce Go 6600

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 77 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 980 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 5 votes

Rate GeForce Go 6600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.