GeForce GTX 660 vs Radeon HD 7950
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7950 and GeForce GTX 660, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 7950 outperforms GTX 660 by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 403 | 439 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 76 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.47 | 3.42 |
| Power efficiency | 4.24 | 5.09 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GK106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 31 January 2012 (12 years ago) | 6 September 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | $229 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 660 has 38% better value for money than HD 7950.
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 | 1792 | 960 |
| Compute units | 28 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1033 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 2,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 140 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 89.60 | 82.56 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.867 TFLOPS | 1.981 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 24 |
| TMUs | 112 | 80 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 241 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| 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 | 3 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 192-bit GDDR5 |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 6.0 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 240 GB/s | 144.2 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 4 displays |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| 3D Gaming | - | + |
| 3D Vision | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.126 |
| 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.
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.
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.
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 | 55−60
+17%
| 47
−17%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 8.16 | 4.87 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.37 | 10.40 |
| Recency | 31 January 2012 | 6 September 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 140 Watt |
HD 7950 has a 18.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 660, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months, and 42.9% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7950 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 660 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
