Radeon 660M vs R7 250X

Place in performance ranking	567	431
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.63	no data
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)	RDNA 2 (2020−2023)
GPU code name	Cape Verde	RDNA 2 Rembrandt
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	13 February 2014 (10 years ago)	4 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$99	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	640	384
Core clock speed	950 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	1900 MHz
Number of transistors	1,500 million	13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	38.00	45.60
Floating-point performance	1,216 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon R7 250X and Radeon 660M 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.

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	210 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	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	GDDR5	no data
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	4500 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	no 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 Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R7 250X 5.88

Radeon 660M 9.79
+66.5%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

R7 250X 2268

Radeon 660M 6285
+177%

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.

R7 250X 2860

Radeon 660M 4735
+65.5%

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

14−16

−78.6%

25
+78.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	26 +0%	26 +0%
Battlefield 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	20 +0%	20 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Hitman 3	21 +0%	21 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	19 +0%	19 +0%
Battlefield 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 +0%	14 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Hitman 3	21 +0%	21 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	33 +0%	33 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Hitman 3	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	22 +0%	22 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27 +0%	27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	15 +0%	15 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30

+0%

27−30

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

+0%

16−18

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

+0%

9−10

+0%

This is how R7 250X and Radeon 660M compete in popular games:

Radeon 660M is 79% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.88	9.79
Recency	13 February 2014	4 January 2022
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	45 Watt

Radeon 660M has a 66.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 77.8% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 660M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250X in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250X is a desktop card while Radeon 660M is a notebook one.

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