GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition vs Radeon R9 390X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 390X with GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.
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 ranking | 230 | 971 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 10.14 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.14 | 2.17 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Grenada | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 18 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.
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 | 2816 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 950 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,200 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 184.8 | 30.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.914 TFLOPS | 0.7296 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 176 | 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 275 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin, 1 x 8-pin | None |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | - | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 0 MB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1050 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 384 GB/s | 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no 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.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| 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 HD | 90
+1700%
| 5−6
−1700%
|
| 4K | 51
+1600%
| 3−4
−1600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.77 | no data |
| 4K | 8.41 | no 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%
|
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%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
| 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 | 85−90
+1600%
|
5−6
−1600%
|
| 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%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
| 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 | 85−90
+1600%
|
5−6
−1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+1800%
|
4−5
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+1683%
|
6−7
−1683%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
| 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%
|
| 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 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| 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%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| 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%
|
| 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
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| 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 | 24.48 | 1.57 |
| Recency | 18 June 2015 | 1 April 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 50 Watt |
R9 390X has a 1459.2% 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
