GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition vs Radeon VII
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon VII with GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.
VII outperforms 660M Mac Edition by a whopping 2540% 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 | 126 | 1021 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 20.25 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.15 | 2.26 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Vega 20 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 February 2019 (6 years ago) | 1 April 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 3840 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1400 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1750 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 13,230 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 420.0 | 30.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 13.44 TFLOPS | 0.7296 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 240 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 280 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-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 | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 1024 GB/s | 80 GB/s |
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 | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 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 | 120
+2900%
| 4−5
−2900%
|
| 1440p | 74
+3600%
| 2−3
−3600%
|
| 4K | 57
+2750%
| 2−3
−2750%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.83 | no data |
| 1440p | 9.45 | no data |
| 4K | 12.26 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+2613%
|
8−9
−2613%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+2967%
|
3−4
−2967%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 136
+2620%
|
5−6
−2620%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+2613%
|
8−9
−2613%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+2967%
|
3−4
−2967%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+2925%
|
4−5
−2925%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+3200%
|
3−4
−3200%
|
| Fortnite | 195
+2686%
|
7−8
−2686%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 163
+2617%
|
6−7
−2617%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+3000%
|
4−5
−3000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 157
+3040%
|
5−6
−3040%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+2750%
|
8−9
−2750%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 137
+2640%
|
5−6
−2640%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+2613%
|
8−9
−2613%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+2680%
|
10−11
−2680%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+2967%
|
3−4
−2967%
|
| Dota 2 | 160
+2567%
|
6−7
−2567%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+2925%
|
4−5
−2925%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95
+3067%
|
3−4
−3067%
|
| Fortnite | 154
+2980%
|
5−6
−2980%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 157
+3040%
|
5−6
−3040%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+3000%
|
4−5
−3000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 111
+2675%
|
4−5
−2675%
|
| Metro Exodus | 88
+2833%
|
3−4
−2833%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 158
+3060%
|
5−6
−3060%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 139
+2680%
|
5−6
−2680%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+2750%
|
8−9
−2750%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 127
+3075%
|
4−5
−3075%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+2967%
|
3−4
−2967%
|
| Dota 2 | 147
+2840%
|
5−6
−2840%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+2925%
|
4−5
−2925%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+2933%
|
3−4
−2933%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130
+3150%
|
4−5
−3150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 143
+2760%
|
5−6
−2760%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
| Valorant | 197
+2714%
|
7−8
−2714%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 114
+2750%
|
4−5
−2750%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−105
+3233%
|
3−4
−3233%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+2660%
|
10−11
−2660%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 43
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2817%
|
6−7
−2817%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+2789%
|
9−10
−2789%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−105
+3233%
|
3−4
−3233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 90−95
+3033%
|
3−4
−3033%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+3067%
|
3−4
−3067%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+2725%
|
4−5
−2725%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+3367%
|
3−4
−3367%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 54
+2600%
|
2−3
−2600%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+2567%
|
9−10
−2567%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 73
+3550%
|
2−3
−3550%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 78
+3800%
|
2−3
−3800%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+2850%
|
2−3
−2850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+3750%
|
2−3
−3750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 58
+2800%
|
2−3
−2800%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 44
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
This is how Radeon VII and GTX 660M Mac Edition compete in popular games:
- Radeon VII is 2900% faster in 1080p
- Radeon VII is 3600% faster in 1440p
- Radeon VII is 2750% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 38.81 | 1.47 |
| Recency | 7 February 2019 | 1 April 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 50 Watt |
Radeon VII has a 2540.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 660M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has 490% lower power consumption.
The Radeon VII is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon VII is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
