Radeon 660M vs ATI E2400

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon E2400 and Radeon 660M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

ATI E2400
2007
128 MB GDDR3, 25 Watt
0.11

660M outperforms ATI E2400 by a whopping 6327% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1443522
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.3514.08
ArchitectureTeraScale (2005−2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameRV610Rembrandt+
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date28 June 2007 (17 years ago)3 January 2023 (2 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 cores40384
Core clock speed600 MHz1500 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1900 MHz
Number of transistors180 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate2.40045.60
Floating-point processing power0.048 TFLOPS1.459 TFLOPS
ROPs416
TMUs424
Ray Tracing Coresno data6

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).

InterfaceMXM-IIPCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount128 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed700 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth11.2 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX10.0 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.7
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCLN/A2.0
VulkanN/A1.3

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.

ATI E2400 0.11
Radeon 660M 7.07
+6327%

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.

ATI E2400 51
Radeon 660M 3163
+6102%

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-0−125

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 29
+0%
29
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24
+0%
24
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 23
+0%
23
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 20
+0%
20
+0%
Far Cry 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 39
+0%
39
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 13
+0%
13
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%
Dota 2 56
+0%
56
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 32
+0%
32
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 25
+0%
25
+0%
Metro Exodus 15
+0%
15
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+0%
26
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Dota 2 48
+0%
48
+0%
Far Cry 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+0%
15
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.11 7.07
Recency 28 June 2007 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 65 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 40 Watt

ATI E2400 has 60% lower power consumption.

Radeon 660M, on the other hand, has a 6327.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, and a 983.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 660M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon E2400 in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


ATI Radeon E2400
Radeon E2400
AMD Radeon 660M
Radeon 660M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Radeon E2400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 359 votes

Rate Radeon 660M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon E2400 or Radeon 660M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.