Radeon Steam Deck 8CU vs 660M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 660M and Radeon Steam Deck 8CU, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Steam Deck 8CU outperforms 660M by a significant 28% 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 | 555 | 481 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 15.28 | no data |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | RDNA 2 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Rembrandt+ | RDNA 2 Sephiroth |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 January 2023 (2 years ago) | 9 November 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 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1900 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,100 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 45.60 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.459 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 24 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 6 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 96 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1 MB |
| L3 Cache | 8 MB | no data |
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 | PCIe 4.0 x8 | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | no data |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | no data |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | no data |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 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.
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 | 25
−16%
| 29
+16%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−33.3%
|
55−60
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 23
+21.1%
|
18−20
−21.1%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−27.8%
|
45−50
+27.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−33.3%
|
55−60
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
−13.3%
|
30−35
+13.3%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−26.5%
|
60−65
+26.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−25%
|
45−50
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 39
+21.9%
|
30−35
−21.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 17
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−27.6%
|
35−40
+27.6%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−16.9%
|
95−100
+16.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−27.8%
|
45−50
+27.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−33.3%
|
55−60
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
−21.3%
|
150−160
+21.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 56
−25%
|
70−75
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
−3.8%
|
27
+3.8%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−26.5%
|
60−65
+26.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−25%
|
45−50
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 32
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 25
+150%
|
10
−150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 13
−46.2%
|
18−20
+46.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 15
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−27.6%
|
35−40
+27.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−16.9%
|
95−100
+16.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−27.8%
|
45−50
+27.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 48
−25%
|
60−65
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+8.7%
|
23
−8.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−25%
|
45−50
+25%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10
−90%
|
18−20
+90%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−27.6%
|
35−40
+27.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
−80%
|
27−30
+80%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−16.9%
|
95−100
+16.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
−26.5%
|
60−65
+26.5%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−26.7%
|
18−20
+26.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
−27.4%
|
75−80
+27.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
−50%
|
14−16
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−42.9%
|
60−65
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−24.2%
|
110−120
+24.2%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−44.4%
|
24−27
+44.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−29.4%
|
21−24
+29.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−31.6%
|
24−27
+31.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−36.4%
|
14−16
+36.4%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
−29.4%
|
21−24
+29.4%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−31%
|
55−60
+31%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
This is how Radeon 660M and Steam Deck 8CU compete in popular games:
- Steam Deck 8CU is 16% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 660M is 150% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Steam Deck 8CU is 150% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 660M performs better in 5 tests (8%)
- Steam Deck 8CU performs better in 57 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
