GeForce GTX 285M vs GTX 660M

Place in the ranking	705	945
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	5.23	1.53
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GK107	G92
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	22 March 2012 (12 years ago)	1 February 2010 (14 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	128
Core clock speed	835 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	950 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,270 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	30.40	38.40
Floating-point processing power	0.7296 TFLOPS	0.384 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	576
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	32	64

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	large
Bus support	PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	MXM-B (3.0)
SLI options	+	2-way
MXM Type	no data	MXM 3.0 Type-B

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	1 GB
Memory bus width	128bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	2000 MHz	Up to 1020 MHz
Memory bandwidth	64.0 GB/s	61 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	Single Link DVIVGALVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPort
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	Up to 2048x1536	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
Power management	no data	8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	2.1
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. 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.

GTX 660M 3.75
+127%

GTX 285M 1.65

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 660M 1447
+128%

GTX 285M 636

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 660M 10971
+68.8%

GTX 285M 6498

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	32 +52.4%	21 −52.4%
Full HD	35 +16.7%	30 −16.7%
1200p	38 +138%	16−18 −138%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

7−8
+75%

4−5

−75%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Battlefield 5	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +340%	5−6 −340%
Hitman 3	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +62.5%	16−18 −62.5%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +23.5%	30−35 −23.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Battlefield 5	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +340%	5−6 −340%
Hitman 3	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +62.5%	16−18 −62.5%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +25%	12−14 −25%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +23.5%	30−35 −23.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +340%	5−6 −340%
Hitman 3	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +62.5%	16−18 −62.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +25%	12−14 −25%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +23.5%	30−35 −23.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+200%

3−4

−200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24 +156%	9−10 −156%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+75%

4−5

−75%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+66.7%

3−4

−66.7%

This is how GTX 660M and GTX 285M compete in popular games:

GTX 660M is 52% faster in 900p
GTX 660M is 17% faster in 1080p
GTX 660M is 138% faster in 1200p

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 660M is 340% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, GTX 660M surpassed GTX 285M in all 51 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.75	1.65
Recency	22 March 2012	1 February 2010
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	75 Watt

GTX 660M has a 127.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 660M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285M in performance tests.

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