GeForce GTX 660 OEM vs Qualcomm Adreno 690
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 690 with GeForce GTX 660 OEM, including specs and performance data.
660 OEM outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 690 by a significant 21% 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 | 859 | 798 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 28.08 | 1.83 |
| Architecture | no data | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | no data | GK104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 December 2018 (6 years ago) | 22 August 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 | no data | 1152 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 823 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 888 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 85.25 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.046 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 96 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 179.2 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 data | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 3.0 |
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 HD | 22
−9.1%
| 24−27
+9.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−13.6%
|
50−55
+13.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−20%
|
60−65
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 43
−16.3%
|
50−55
+16.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−13.6%
|
50−55
+13.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 35
−14.3%
|
40−45
+14.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−13.6%
|
50−55
+13.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−12.5%
|
27−30
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how Qualcomm Adreno 690 and GTX 660 OEM compete in popular games:
- GTX 660 OEM is 9% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.55 | 3.08 |
| Recency | 6 December 2018 | 22 August 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 130 Watt |
Qualcomm Adreno 690 has an age advantage of 6 years, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 1757.1% lower power consumption.
GTX 660 OEM, on the other hand, has a 20.8% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GTX 660 OEM is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 690 in performance tests.
Be aware that Qualcomm Adreno 690 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 660 OEM 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.
