GeForce GTX 660 vs Tesla M60
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M60 with GeForce GTX 660, including specs and performance data.
Tesla M60 outperforms GTX 660 by an impressive 91% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 290 | 446 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 77 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.46 |
| Power efficiency | 4.55 | 5.11 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GK106 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 30 August 2015 (9 years ago) | 6 September 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $229 |
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 | 2048 ×2 | 960 |
| Core clock speed | 557 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1178 MHz | 1033 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 2,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 140 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 150.8 ×2 | 82.56 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.825 TFLOPS ×2 | 1.981 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 ×2 | 24 |
| TMUs | 128 ×2 | 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 | no data | 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 | 1x 8-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 | 8 GB ×2 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit ×2 | 192-bit GDDR5 |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 6.0 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s ×2 | 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 | No outputs | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 4 displays |
| 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.
| 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 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | + |
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.
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.
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 | 85−90
+80.9%
| 47
−80.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.87 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.91 | 10.44 |
| Recency | 30 August 2015 | 6 September 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 140 Watt |
Tesla M60 has a 90.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 660, on the other hand, has 114.3% lower power consumption.
The Tesla M60 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 660 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla M60 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 660 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
