Radeon HD 7660G vs GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Radeon HD 7660G, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile outperforms HD 7660G by a whopping 1832% 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 | 276 | 1092 |
| Place by popularity | 48 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 28.24 | 2.51 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2025) | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) |
| GPU code name | GN20-P0 | Devastator |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (4 years ago) | 15 May 2012 (13 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 | 2048 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1238 MHz | 686 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 686 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,303 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 16.46 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.5268 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
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 |
| Interface | no data | IGP |
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 | GDDR6 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | System Shared |
| Shared memory | - | + |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 190−200
+1800%
| 10
−1800%
|
| Full HD | 62
+288%
| 16
−288%
|
| 1200p | 170−180
+1789%
| 9
−1789%
|
| 1440p | 43
+2050%
| 2−3
−2050%
|
| 4K | 26
+2500%
| 1−2
−2500%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170
+2025%
|
8−9
−2025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66
+3200%
|
2−3
−3200%
|
| God of War | 51
+920%
|
5−6
−920%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 93
+9200%
|
1−2
−9200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 125
+1983%
|
6−7
−1983%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+3300%
|
2−3
−3300%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+5600%
|
2−3
−5600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+1186%
|
7−8
−1186%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 87 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 42
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+878%
|
9−10
−878%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+400%
|
30−35
−400%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 89
+8800%
|
1−2
−8800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+544%
|
39
−544%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
+638%
|
16
−638%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
+3100%
|
2−3
−3100%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+5600%
|
2−3
−5600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+1186%
|
7−8
−1186%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 77 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 35
+600%
|
5−6
−600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 49
+2350%
|
2−3
−2350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+878%
|
9−10
−878%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+1057%
|
7−8
−1057%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+400%
|
30−35
−400%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 83
+8200%
|
1−2
−8200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+647%
|
15
−647%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+2950%
|
2−3
−2950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+1186%
|
7−8
−1186%
|
| God of War | 23
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+878%
|
9−10
−878%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+557%
|
7−8
−557%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+400%
|
30−35
−400%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+5600%
|
2−3
−5600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+2214%
|
7−8
−2214%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 48
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1350%
|
12−14
−1350%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+6467%
|
3−4
−6467%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+2100%
|
3−4
−2100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 49 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1833%
|
3−4
−1833%
|
| God of War | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
+2600%
|
2−3
−2600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+2100%
|
6−7
−2100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 62 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 19 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| God of War | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
This is how RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and HD 7660G compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 1800% faster in 900p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 288% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 1789% faster in 1200p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 2050% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 2500% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 9200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 3050 4GB Mobile surpassed HD 7660G in all 42 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.22 | 1.15 |
| Recency | 11 May 2021 | 15 May 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 35 Watt |
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile has a 1832.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
HD 7660G, on the other hand, has 71.4% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7660G 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.
