GeForce GTX 660 vs Arc A350M

Place in the ranking	360	438
Place by popularity	not in top-100	81
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	3.40
Power efficiency	40.28	5.13
Architecture	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	DG2-128	GK106
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	30 March 2022 (2 years ago)	6 September 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$229

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 cores	768	960
Core clock speed	300 MHz	980 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	1033 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	2,540 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	140 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.20	82.56
Floating-point processing power	1.766 TFLOPS	1.981 TFLOPS
ROPs	24	24
TMUs	48	80
Ray Tracing Cores	6	no data

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	no data	PCI Express 3.0
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	241 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 6-pin
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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	192-bit GDDR5
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	6.0 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	112.0 GB/s	144.2 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	One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	no data	4 displays
HDMI	-	+
HDCP	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray	-	+
3D Gaming	-	+
3D Vision	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.6	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.3
OpenCL	3.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.3	1.1.126
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. 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.

Arc A350M 14.56
+39.6%

GTX 660 10.43

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.

Arc A350M 7147
+41.8%

GTX 660 5040

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	35 −34.3%	47 +34.3%
1440p	16 +60%	10−12 −60%
4K	8 +60%	5−6 −60%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	4.87
1440p	no data	22.90
4K	no data	45.80

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	27 +50%	18−20 −50%
Elden Ring	22 +57.1%	14−16 −57.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +60%	30−33 −60%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +50%	6−7 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	66 +46.7%	45−50 −46.7%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +48.1%	27−30 −48.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +50%	24−27 −50%
Valorant	56 +40%	40−45 −40%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +60%	30−33 −60%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	8 +60%	5−6 −60%
Dota 2	38 +40.7%	27−30 −40.7%
Elden Ring	42 +40%	30−33 −40%
Far Cry 5	27 +50%	18−20 −50%
Fortnite	80−85 +49.1%	55−60 −49.1%
Forza Horizon 4	53 +51.4%	35−40 −51.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	26 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +48.1%	27−30 −48.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +41.3%	75−80 −41.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +50%	24−27 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +50%	30−33 −50%
Valorant	55−60 +45%	40−45 −45%
World of Tanks	190−200 +46.9%	130−140 −46.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +60%	30−33 −60%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 +50%	4−5 −50%
Dota 2	59 +47.5%	40−45 −47.5%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +54.3%	35−40 −54.3%
Forza Horizon 4	45 +50%	30−33 −50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +41.3%	75−80 −41.3%
Valorant	55−60 +45%	40−45 −45%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Elden Ring	17 +41.7%	12−14 −41.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	10 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +41.1%	90−95 −41.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
World of Tanks	100−110 +45.7%	70−75 −45.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +61.1%	18−20 −61.1%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +45.8%	24−27 −45.8%
Forza Horizon 4	37 +54.2%	24−27 −54.2%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +52.4%	21−24 −52.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +50%	12−14 −50%
Valorant	35−40 +50%	24−27 −50%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Dota 2	11 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Elden Ring	3 +50%	2−3 −50%
Grand Theft Auto V	11 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +43.3%	30−33 −43.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +40%	10−11 −40%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Dota 2	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +50%	12−14 −50%
Fortnite	16−18 +41.7%	12−14 −41.7%
Forza Horizon 4	19 +58.3%	12−14 −58.3%
Valorant	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%

This is how Arc A350M and GTX 660 compete in popular games:

GTX 660 is 34% faster in 1080p
Arc A350M is 60% faster in 1440p
Arc A350M is 60% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.56	10.43
Recency	30 March 2022	6 September 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	140 Watt

Arc A350M has a 39.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 460% lower power consumption.

The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 660 in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc A350M is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 660 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.