GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition vs Radeon HD 7670M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7670M with GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.
GTX 660M Mac Edition outperforms HD 7670M by a significant 27% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1010 | 927 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | 0.05 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Thames XT | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 June 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 April 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $629.99 | no data |
| Current price | $338 (0.5x MSRP) | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 660M Mac Edition has 25% better value for money than HD 7670M.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 480 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 14.40 | 30.40 |
| Floating-point performance | 576.0 gflops | 729.6 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon HD 7670M and GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Width | no data | MXM Module |
| 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 | DDR3, (GDDR5) | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 5000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 80 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics 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 | no data | 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:
| 900p | 17
−23.5%
| 21−24
+23.5%
|
| Full HD | 21
−14.3%
| 24−27
+14.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how HD 7670M and GTX 660M Mac Edition compete in popular games:
- GTX 660M Mac Edition is 24% faster in 900p
- GTX 660M Mac Edition is 14% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.23 | 1.56 |
| Recency | 7 June 2011 | 1 April 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 50 Watt |
HD 7670M has a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 150% lower power consumption.
GTX 660M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has a 26.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7670M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7670M is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
