Radeon HD 6990M vs GeForce GTX 660 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 660 Ti with Radeon HD 6990M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 660 Ti outperforms HD 6990M by a whopping 118% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 425 | 626 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.19 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.29 | 3.63 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Blackcomb |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 16 August 2012 (12 years ago) | 12 July 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1344 | 1120 |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | 715 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 109.8 | 40.04 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.634 TFLOPS | 1.602 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 56 |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192-bit GDDR5 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.2 GB/s | 115.2 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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| 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. 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.
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.
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 | 110−120
+104%
| 54
−104%
|
| Full HD | 76
+28.8%
| 59
−28.8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.93 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+109%
|
21−24
−109%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+146%
|
12−14
−146%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+181%
|
16−18
−181%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+147%
|
16−18
−147%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+80%
|
24−27
−80%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+113%
|
30−35
−113%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+109%
|
21−24
−109%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+141%
|
16−18
−141%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+146%
|
12−14
−146%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+97.7%
|
40−45
−97.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+106%
|
16−18
−106%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+181%
|
16−18
−181%
|
| World of Tanks | 192
+126%
|
85−90
−126%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+147%
|
16−18
−147%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+80%
|
24−27
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+109%
|
21−24
−109%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+97.7%
|
40−45
−97.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+181%
|
16−18
−181%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+152%
|
30−35
−152%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| World of Tanks | 80−85
+116%
|
35−40
−116%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+136%
|
10−12
−136%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+200%
|
9−10
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+29.4%
|
16−18
−29.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+127%
|
14−16
−127%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+29.4%
|
16−18
−29.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
This is how GTX 660 Ti and HD 6990M compete in popular games:
- GTX 660 Ti is 104% faster in 900p
- GTX 660 Ti is 29% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 660 Ti is 360% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 660 Ti surpassed HD 6990M in all 61 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.40 | 5.22 |
| Recency | 16 August 2012 | 12 July 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
GTX 660 Ti has a 118.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
HD 6990M, on the other hand, has 50% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6990M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 660 Ti is a desktop card while Radeon HD 6990M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
