Radeon RX 7900M vs 660M

Place in the ranking	561	33
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	11.86	22.99
Architecture	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	Rembrandt+	Navi 31
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	3 January 2023 (2 years ago)	19 October 2023 (1 year 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	4608
Core clock speed	1500 MHz	1825 MHz
Boost clock speed	1900 MHz	2090 MHz
Number of transistors	13,100 million	57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	180 Watt
Texture fill rate	45.60	601.9
Floating-point processing power	1.459 TFLOPS	38.52 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	192
TMUs	24	288
Ray Tracing Cores	6	72

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	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	PCIe 4.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	System Shared	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	16 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	576.0 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

Portable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.7	6.8
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	2.2
Vulkan	1.3	1.3

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Radeon 660M 6.89

RX 7900M 60.12
+773%

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.

Radeon 660M 2647

RX 7900M 23115
+773%

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.

Radeon 660M 6743

RX 7900M 59943
+789%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Radeon 660M 4848

RX 7900M 50241
+936%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Radeon 660M 1544

RX 7900M 19434
+1159%

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	24 −558%	158 +558%
1440p	12−14 −867%	116 +867%
4K	10−12 −820%	92 +820%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −833%	140−150 +833%
Cyberpunk 2077	24 −733%	200−210 +733%
Elden Ring	22 −927%	220−230 +927%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −432%	110−120 +432%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −833%	140−150 +833%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 −750%	85−90 +750%
Forza Horizon 4	42 −674%	300−350 +674%
Metro Exodus	32 −297%	120−130 +297%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 −450%	110−120 +450%
Valorant	36 −656%	270−280 +656%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −432%	110−120 +432%
Counter-Strike 2	11 −1091%	131 +1091%
Cyberpunk 2077	7 −757%	60−65 +757%
Dota 2	35 −297%	139 +297%
Elden Ring	22 −927%	220−230 +927%
Far Cry 5	29 −190%	84 +190%
Fortnite	40−45 −476%	230−240 +476%
Forza Horizon 4	33 −885%	300−350 +885%
Grand Theft Auto V	25 −456%	139 +456%
Metro Exodus	20 −535%	120−130 +535%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 −284%	210−220 +284%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 −450%	110−120 +450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −729%	170−180 +729%
Valorant	19 −1332%	270−280 +1332%
World of Tanks	100−110 −161%	270−280 +161%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −432%	110−120 +432%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −767%	130 +767%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −757%	120−130 +757%
Dota 2	48 −733%	400−450 +733%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −284%	110−120 +284%
Forza Horizon 4	28 −1129%	344 +1129%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 −284%	210−220 +284%
Valorant	21−24 −1136%	270−280 +1136%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	7−8 −1414%	106 +1414%
Elden Ring	9−10 −1533%	140−150 +1533%
Grand Theft Auto V	7−8 −1414%	106 +1414%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −361%	170−180 +361%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −1300%	70−75 +1300%
World of Tanks	50−55 −694%	350−400 +694%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −625%	85−90 +625%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −750%	85 +750%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −700%	40−45 +700%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −1043%	160−170 +1043%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1815%	249 +1815%
Metro Exodus	10−11 −1060%	110−120 +1060%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 −1463%	120−130 +1463%
Valorant	18−20 −1211%	230−240 +1211%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −7000%	70−75 +7000%
Dota 2	18−20 −711%	146 +711%
Elden Ring	4−5 −1800%	75−80 +1800%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −759%	146 +759%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −2750%	55−60 +2750%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	20−22 −945%	200−210 +945%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −1050%	45−50 +1050%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −759%	146 +759%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −1183%	75−80 +1183%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −7000%	70−75 +7000%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −700%	16−18 +700%
Dota 2	18−20 −733%	150−160 +733%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −1213%	100−110 +1213%
Fortnite	6−7 −1500%	95−100 +1500%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −1771%	131 +1771%
Valorant	6−7 −2117%	130−140 +2117%

This is how Radeon 660M and RX 7900M compete in popular games:

RX 7900M is 558% faster in 1080p
RX 7900M is 867% faster in 1440p
RX 7900M is 820% faster in 4K

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

in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 7900M is 7000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, RX 7900M surpassed Radeon 660M in all 55 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.89	60.12
Recency	3 January 2023	19 October 2023
Chip lithography	6 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	180 Watt

Radeon 660M has 350% lower power consumption.

RX 7900M, on the other hand, has a 772.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, and a 20% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 7900M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 660M in performance tests.

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