ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4670 vs GeForce GTX 660M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 660M and Mobility Radeon HD 4670, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 660M outperforms ATI Mobility HD 4670 by a whopping 1206% 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 | 379 | 1100 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 22.06 | 2.41 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | M96 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (13 years ago) | 9 January 2009 (16 years ago) |
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 | 384 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 835 MHz | 675 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 514 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.40 | 21.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7296 TFLOPS | 0.432 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 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).
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.0 GB/s | 25.6 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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:
| 900p | 30
+1400%
| 2−3
−1400%
|
| Full HD | 35
+1650%
| 2−3
−1650%
|
| 1200p | 38
+1800%
| 2−3
−1800%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+1383%
|
6−7
−1383%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+6600%
|
1−2
−6600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+1383%
|
6−7
−1383%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+2450%
|
2−3
−2450%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+4250%
|
2−3
−4250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+829%
|
7−8
−829%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+544%
|
9−10
−544%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+297%
|
30−35
−297%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+6600%
|
1−2
−6600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+1383%
|
6−7
−1383%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 89
+230%
|
27−30
−230%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+506%
|
16−18
−506%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+2450%
|
2−3
−2450%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+4250%
|
2−3
−4250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+829%
|
7−8
−829%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+544%
|
9−10
−544%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+600%
|
6−7
−600%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+297%
|
30−35
−297%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+6600%
|
1−2
−6600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+506%
|
16−18
−506%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+2450%
|
2−3
−2450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+829%
|
7−8
−829%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+544%
|
9−10
−544%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+600%
|
6−7
−600%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+297%
|
30−35
−297%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 85−90
+4250%
|
2−3
−4250%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+1557%
|
7−8
−1557%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1245%
|
10−12
−1245%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+7750%
|
2−3
−7750%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1200%
|
3−4
−1200%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+93.3%
|
14−16
−93.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+1350%
|
6−7
−1350%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 10−12 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
This is how GTX 660M and ATI Mobility HD 4670 compete in popular games:
- GTX 660M is 1400% faster in 900p
- GTX 660M is 1650% faster in 1080p
- GTX 660M is 1800% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 660M is 7750% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 660M surpassed ATI Mobility HD 4670 in all 38 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.11 | 1.08 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 9 January 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 35 Watt |
GTX 660M has a 1206.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.
ATI Mobility HD 4670, on the other hand, has 42.9% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 660M is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 4670 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
