Radeon RX 8050S vs GeForce GTX 660 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 660 Ti with Radeon RX 8050S, including specs and performance data.
8050S outperforms 660 Ti by a whopping 240% 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 | 477 | 155 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.79 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.42 | no data |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | no data |
| GPU code name | GK104 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 16 August 2012 (13 years ago) | 6 January 2025 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | 2800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 109.8 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.634 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 24 | no data |
| TMUs | 112 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 112 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 384 KB | 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 | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no data |
| 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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 192-bit GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.2 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | no data |
| 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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | no data |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 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.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 77
−22.1%
| 94
+22.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.88 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
−248%
|
200−210
+248%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−282%
|
80−85
+282%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 21−24
−357%
|
95−100
+357%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−170%
|
120−130
+170%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
−248%
|
200−210
+248%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−282%
|
80−85
+282%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−186%
|
100
+186%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
−148%
|
150−160
+148%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−204%
|
140−150
+204%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
−248%
|
110−120
+248%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−272%
|
140−150
+272%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−118%
|
210−220
+118%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−170%
|
120−130
+170%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
−248%
|
200−210
+248%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 192
−44.8%
|
270−280
+44.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−282%
|
80−85
+282%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
−233%
|
250−260
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−174%
|
96
+174%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
−148%
|
150−160
+148%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−204%
|
140−150
+204%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
−248%
|
110−120
+248%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
−195%
|
118
+195%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−291%
|
85−90
+291%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−272%
|
140−150
+272%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−457%
|
156
+457%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−118%
|
210−220
+118%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−170%
|
120−130
+170%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−282%
|
80−85
+282%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
−233%
|
250−260
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−143%
|
85
+143%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−204%
|
140−150
+204%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−272%
|
140−150
+272%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−229%
|
92
+229%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−203%
|
300−310
+203%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 60−65
−148%
|
150−160
+148%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−345%
|
85−90
+345%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
−215%
|
250−260
+215%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−393%
|
70−75
+393%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−333%
|
50−55
+333%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−228%
|
200−210
+228%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−113%
|
240−250
+113%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−236%
|
90−95
+236%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−356%
|
40−45
+356%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−278%
|
85−90
+278%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−292%
|
100−110
+292%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−347%
|
65−70
+347%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
−313%
|
95−100
+313%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−583%
|
40−45
+583%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−255%
|
75−80
+255%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−338%
|
55−60
+338%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−289%
|
220−230
+289%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−314%
|
55−60
+314%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−233%
|
130−140
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−327%
|
45−50
+327%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−278%
|
65−70
+278%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−370%
|
45−50
+370%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
−360%
|
45−50
+360%
|
This is how GTX 660 Ti and RX 8050S compete in popular games:
- RX 8050S is 22% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 8050S is 583% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 8050S surpassed GTX 660 Ti in all 54 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.56 | 35.92 |
| Recency | 16 August 2012 | 6 January 2025 |
RX 8050S has a 240% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 12 years.
The Radeon RX 8050S is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 660 Ti in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 660 Ti is a desktop graphics card while Radeon RX 8050S is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
