GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition vs Radeon HD 7660D

Place in the ranking	1036	976
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.10	no data
Power efficiency	0.91	2.17
Architecture	TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	Devastator	GK107
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	2 October 2012 (12 years ago)	1 April 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$122	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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	384
Core clock speed	800 MHz	950 MHz
Boost clock speed	800 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,303 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	32 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	19.20	30.40
Floating-point processing power	0.6144 TFLOPS	0.7296 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	24	32

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	IGP	MXM-B (3.0)
Width	IGP	no data
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	512 MB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	80 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

No outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	11.2 (11_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.0	5.1
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	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

−6.7%

16−18
+6.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

8.13

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Fortnite	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −14.3%	16−18 +14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
World of Tanks	54 −11.1%	60−65 +11.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −14.3%	16−18 +14.3%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
World of Tanks	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Valorant	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Valorant	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how HD 7660D and GTX 660M Mac Edition compete in popular games:

GTX 660M Mac Edition is 7% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.27	1.52
Recency	2 October 2012	1 April 2013
Chip lithography	32 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	50 Watt

GTX 660M Mac Edition has a 19.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 months, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7660D in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 7660D is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition is a notebook one.

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