GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition vs Radeon HD 8350G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8350G and GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
660M Mac Edition outperforms HD 8350G by a whopping 137% 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 | 1251 | 1020 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.36 | 2.26 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Scrapper Lite | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 March 2013 (12 years ago) | 1 April 2013 (12 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 cores | 128 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 514 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 720 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.760 | 30.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1843 TFLOPS | 0.7296 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 8 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
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 |
| Interface | IGP | MXM-B (3.0) |
| 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
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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
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 | 10
−110%
| 21−24
+110%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−132%
|
65−70
+132%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−137%
|
45−50
+137%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 11
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−132%
|
65−70
+132%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−132%
|
65−70
+132%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−114%
|
30−33
+114%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
This is how HD 8350G and GTX 660M Mac Edition compete in popular games:
- GTX 660M Mac Edition is 110% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.62 | 1.47 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 50 Watt |
HD 8350G has 42.9% lower power consumption.
GTX 660M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has a 137.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8350G in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
