Radeon 660M vs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
Aggregated performance score
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 outperforms Radeon 660M by 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 416 | 421 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | RDNA 2 (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | RDNA 2 Rembrandt |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (3 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (2 years ago) |
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 | 96 | 384 |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 45.60 |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and Radeon 660M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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 | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| Memory type | DDR4 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | no data | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System Shared |
| 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 | no data | No outputs |
Supported Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | no data | 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.
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 outperforms Radeon 660M by 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 outperforms Radeon 660M by 6% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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 | 24−27
−4.2%
| 25
+4.2%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+5%
|
20−22
−5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+3%
|
30−35
−3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+3.8%
|
24−27
−3.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−20%
|
30
+20%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
−18.5%
|
32
+18.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
−23.8%
|
26
+23.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+5%
|
20−22
−5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+3%
|
30−35
−3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+3.8%
|
24−27
−3.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−4%
|
26
+4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
−7.4%
|
29
+7.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+5%
|
20
−5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−25%
|
25
+25%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+5%
|
20−22
−5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+3%
|
30−35
−3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−4%
|
26
+4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+33.3%
|
15
−33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and Radeon 660M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 660M is 4.2% faster than Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 33.3% faster than the Radeon 660M.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 660M is 25% faster than the Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7.
All in all, in popular games:
- Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is ahead in 17 tests (36%)
- Radeon 660M is ahead in 7 tests (15%)
- there's a draw in 23 tests (49%)
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 9.98 | 9.79 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 6 nm |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and Radeon 660M.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
