Radeon 660M vs GeForce GTX 485M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 485M and Radeon 660M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 485M
2011
2 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
6.14

660M outperforms GTX 485M by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking593521
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency4.2114.10
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGF104Rembrandt+
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date5 January 2011 (14 years ago)3 January 2023 (2 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 cores384384
Core clock speed1150 MHz1500 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1900 MHz
Number of transistors1,950 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate36.8045.60
Floating-point processing power0.8832 TFLOPS1.459 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs6424
Ray Tracing Coresno data6

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1500 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth96.0 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.7
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.3
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.

GTX 485M 6.14
Radeon 660M 8.23
+34%

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
    • 3DMark Vantage Performance

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 485M 2359
Radeon 660M 3163
+34.1%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 485M 2709
Radeon 660M 6743
+149%

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.

GTX 485M 13536
Radeon 660M 23222
+71.6%

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:

900p48
−25%
60−65
+25%
Full HD66
+164%
25
−164%

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
Atomic Heart 14−16
−107%
29
+107%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−25%
14−16
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−100%
24
+100%
Atomic Heart 14−16
−64.3%
23
+64.3%
Battlefield 5 24−27
−41.7%
30−35
+41.7%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−25%
14−16
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−66.7%
20
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−76.5%
30
+76.5%
Fortnite 35−40
−34.3%
45−50
+34.3%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−30.8%
30−35
+30.8%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
−131%
30
+131%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
−33.3%
27−30
+33.3%
Valorant 65−70
−19.4%
80−85
+19.4%
Atomic Heart 14−16
+7.7%
13
−7.7%
Battlefield 5 24−27
−41.7%
30−35
+41.7%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+9.1%
11
−9.1%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
−27.1%
120−130
+27.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−16.7%
14
+16.7%
Dota 2 45−50
−19.1%
56
+19.1%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−52.9%
26
+52.9%
Fortnite 35−40
−34.3%
45−50
+34.3%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−30.8%
30−35
+30.8%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
−46.2%
18−20
+46.2%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
−25%
25
+25%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−36.4%
15
+36.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
−33.3%
27−30
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−73.3%
26
+73.3%
Valorant 65−70
−19.4%
80−85
+19.4%
Battlefield 5 24−27
−41.7%
30−35
+41.7%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−25%
14−16
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−33.3%
16−18
+33.3%
Dota 2 45−50
−2.1%
48
+2.1%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−47.1%
25
+47.1%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−30.8%
30−35
+30.8%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
−46.2%
18−20
+46.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
−33.3%
27−30
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
15
+0%
Valorant 65−70
−19.4%
80−85
+19.4%
Fortnite 35−40
−34.3%
45−50
+34.3%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 40−45
−34.1%
55−60
+34.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
−10.8%
40−45
+10.8%
Valorant 65−70
−33.8%
85−90
+33.8%
Battlefield 5 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−45.5%
16−18
+45.5%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
−44.4%
12−14
+44.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Fortnite 10−12
−45.5%
16−18
+45.5%
Atomic Heart 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−11.8%
18−20
+11.8%
Metro Exodus 0−1 3−4
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Valorant 27−30
−37.9%
40−45
+37.9%
Battlefield 5 4−5
−100%
8−9
+100%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 20−22
−40%
27−30
+40%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Fortnite 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

This is how GTX 485M and Radeon 660M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 660M is 25% faster in 900p
  • GTX 485M is 164% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 485M is 9% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 660M is 133% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 485M is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
  • Radeon 660M is ahead in 61 test (92%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.14 8.23
Recency 5 January 2011 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 40 Watt

Radeon 660M has a 34% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 566.7% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 660M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 485M in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 485M
GeForce GTX 485M
AMD Radeon 660M
Radeon 660M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


1
3 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 485M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7
351 vote

Rate Radeon 660M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 485M or Radeon 660M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.