Radeon 660M vs ATI Mobility HD 5165
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 5165 and Radeon 660M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
660M outperforms Mobility HD 5165 by a whopping 662% 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 | 1156 | 572 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.22 | 14.82 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | M96 | Rembrandt+ |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (16 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (3 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 | 320 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 514 million | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 19.20 | 45.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.384 TFLOPS | 1.459 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 24 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 6 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 96 KB |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 8 MB |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 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 | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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 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:
| Full HD | 3−4
−667%
| 23
+667%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−1200%
| 13
+1200%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1100%
|
24
+1100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−900%
|
20
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30
+1400%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2250%
|
45−50
+2250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−3800%
|
39
+3800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−211%
|
27−30
+211%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−161%
|
80−85
+161%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−392%
|
120−130
+392%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−600%
|
14
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−273%
|
56
+273%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1200%
|
26
+1200%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2250%
|
45−50
+2250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−3100%
|
32
+3100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1400%
|
15
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−211%
|
27−30
+211%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−333%
|
26
+333%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−161%
|
80−85
+161%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−220%
|
48
+220%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1150%
|
25
+1150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−211%
|
27−30
+211%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−150%
|
15
+150%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−161%
|
80−85
+161%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2250%
|
45−50
+2250%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−282%
|
40−45
+282%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−700%
|
40−45
+700%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 78
+0%
|
78
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how ATI Mobility HD 5165 and Radeon 660M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 660M is 667% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 660M is 1200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 660M is 3800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 660M performs better in 38 tests (64%)
- there's a draw in 21 tests (36%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.01 | 7.70 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 40 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 5165 has 14% lower power consumption.
Radeon 660M, on the other hand, has a 662% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 817% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 660M is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 5165 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
