GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition vs Radeon R9 390X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 390X with GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.

R9 390X
2015
0 MB GDDR5, 275 Watt
24.47
+1459%

R9 390X outperforms GTX 660M Mac Edition by a whopping 1459% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking230970
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.98no data
Power efficiency6.132.16
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGrenadaGK107
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (9 years ago)1 April 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$429 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores2816384
Core clock speedno data950 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,200 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate184.830.40
Floating-point processing power5.914 TFLOPS0.7296 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs17632

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin, 1 x 8-pinNone
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount0 MB512 MB
Memory bus width512 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1050 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth384 GB/s80 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.1.126
Mantle+-
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 HD90
+1700%
5−6
−1700%
4K51
+1600%
3−4
−1600%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.77no data
4K8.41no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+2150%
2−3
−2150%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+1567%
3−4
−1567%
Elden Ring 80−85
+1500%
5−6
−1500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+1775%
4−5
−1775%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+2150%
2−3
−2150%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+1567%
3−4
−1567%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+1683%
6−7
−1683%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+1500%
4−5
−1500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+1700%
3−4
−1700%
Valorant 95−100
+1533%
6−7
−1533%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+1775%
4−5
−1775%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+2150%
2−3
−2150%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+1567%
3−4
−1567%
Dota 2 80−85
+1580%
5−6
−1580%
Elden Ring 80−85
+1500%
5−6
−1500%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+1800%
4−5
−1800%
Fortnite 120−130
+1657%
7−8
−1657%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+1683%
6−7
−1683%
Grand Theft Auto V 80−85
+1580%
5−6
−1580%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+1500%
4−5
−1500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+1622%
9−10
−1622%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+1700%
3−4
−1700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 78
+1460%
5−6
−1460%
Valorant 95−100
+1533%
6−7
−1533%
World of Tanks 250−260
+1500%
16−18
−1500%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+1775%
4−5
−1775%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+2150%
2−3
−2150%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+1567%
3−4
−1567%
Dota 2 80−85
+1580%
5−6
−1580%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+1800%
4−5
−1800%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+1683%
6−7
−1683%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+1622%
9−10
−1622%
Valorant 95−100
+1533%
6−7
−1533%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 40−45
+1950%
2−3
−1950%
Elden Ring 40−45
+2050%
2−3
−2050%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+1950%
2−3
−1950%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+1650%
10−11
−1650%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
World of Tanks 160−170
+1520%
10−11
−1520%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+1533%
3−4
−1533%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+1675%
4−5
−1675%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+1525%
4−5
−1525%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+1767%
3−4
−1767%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+1700%
2−3
−1700%
Valorant 65−70
+1550%
4−5
−1550%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Dota 2 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%
Elden Ring 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+1775%
4−5
−1775%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9 0−1
Dota 2 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+1500%
2−3
−1500%
Fortnite 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+1750%
2−3
−1750%
Valorant 30−35
+1500%
2−3
−1500%

This is how R9 390X and GTX 660M Mac Edition compete in popular games:

  • R9 390X is 1700% faster in 1080p
  • R9 390X is 1600% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.47 1.57
Recency 18 June 2015 1 April 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 50 Watt

R9 390X has a 1458.6% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.

GTX 660M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has 450% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 390X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 390X 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.

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.


AMD Radeon R9 390X
Radeon R9 390X
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition
GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition

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.


4.3 264 votes

Rate Radeon R9 390X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 22 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.