GeForce GTX 660 vs Radeon 860M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 860M with GeForce GTX 660, including specs and performance data.
860M outperforms GTX 660 by a moderate 19% 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 | 435 | 476 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 93 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.87 |
| Power efficiency | 58.08 | 5.21 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Krackan Point | GK106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | March 2025 (recently) | 6 September 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $229 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 512 | 960 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3000 MHz | 1033 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 34,000 million | 2,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 140 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 96.00 | 82.56 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.072 TFLOPS | 1.981 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 24 |
| TMUs | 32 | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| 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 type | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 192-bit GDDR5 |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 6.0 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 144.2 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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 4 displays |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| 3D Gaming | - | + |
| 3D Vision | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
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 | 44
−6.8%
| 47
+6.8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.87 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+28%
|
50−55
−28%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+27.5%
|
40−45
−27.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+28%
|
50−55
−28%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50
+25%
|
40−45
−25%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+25.5%
|
55−60
−25.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+25%
|
40−45
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+20%
|
30−33
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+20%
|
35−40
−20%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+22.4%
|
85−90
−22.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+27.5%
|
40−45
−27.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+28%
|
50−55
−28%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+26.9%
|
130−140
−26.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+28.6%
|
35−40
−28.6%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+25.5%
|
55−60
−25.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+25%
|
40−45
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+20%
|
30−33
−20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 49
+22.5%
|
40−45
−22.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+20%
|
35−40
−20%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+25%
|
24−27
−25%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+22.4%
|
85−90
−22.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+27.5%
|
40−45
−27.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+20%
|
35−40
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+25%
|
40−45
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+20%
|
35−40
−20%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+25%
|
24−27
−25%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65−70
+25.5%
|
55−60
−25.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+25.7%
|
70−75
−25.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+25%
|
100−105
−25%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+29.2%
|
24−27
−29.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+24%
|
50−55
−24%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
This is how Radeon 860M and GTX 660 compete in popular games:
- GTX 660 is 7% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.14 | 9.33 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 140 Watt |
Radeon 860M has a 19.4% higher aggregate performance score, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 833.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 860M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 660 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 860M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 660 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.
