Submit Benchmarks!

Submit SSD Benchmark
Submit GPU Benchmark

Compare any two graphics cards:

GeForce GTX 660 vs Radeon HD 7770


The GeForce GTX 660 comes with core clock speeds of 980 MHz on the GPU, and 1502 MHz on the 2048 MB of GDDR5 memory. It features 960 SPUs along with 80 TAUs and 24 Rasterization Operator Units.

Compare all that to the Radeon HD 7770, which features a clock frequency of 1000 MHz and a GDDR5 memory speed of 1125 MHz. It also uses a 128-bit bus, and makes use of a 28 nm design. It is made up of 640 SPUs, 40 TAUs, and 16 Raster Operation Units.

Display Graphs

Hide Graphs

Power Usage and Theoretical Benchmarks

Power Consumption (Max TDP)

Radeon HD 7770 80 Watts
GeForce GTX 660 140 Watts
Difference: 60 Watts (75%)

Memory Bandwidth

Theoretically, the GeForce GTX 660 should be quite a bit faster than the Radeon HD 7770 in general. (explain)

GeForce GTX 660 144192 MB/sec
Radeon HD 7770 72000 MB/sec
Difference: 72192 (100%)

Texel Rate

The GeForce GTX 660 is a lot (approximately 96%) more effective at texture filtering than the Radeon HD 7770. (explain)

GeForce GTX 660 78400 Mtexels/sec
Radeon HD 7770 40000 Mtexels/sec
Difference: 38400 (96%)

Pixel Rate

If running with high levels of AA is important to you, then the GeForce GTX 660 is the winner, by far. (explain)

GeForce GTX 660 23520 Mpixels/sec
Radeon HD 7770 16000 Mpixels/sec
Difference: 7520 (47%)

Please note that the above 'benchmarks' are all just theoretical - the results were calculated based on the card's specifications, and real-world performance may (and probably will) vary at least a bit.

Price Comparison

Display Prices

Hide Prices

GeForce GTX 660

Radeon HD 7770

Please note that the price comparisons are based on search keywords - sometimes it might show cards with very similar names that are not exactly the same as the one chosen in the comparison. We do try to filter out the wrong results as best we can, though.


Display Specifications

Hide Specifications

Model GeForce GTX 660 Radeon HD 7770
Manufacturer nVidia AMD
Year September 2012 February 2012
Code Name GK106 Cape Verde XT
Memory 2048 MB 1024 MB
Core Speed 980 MHz 1000 MHz
Memory Speed 6008 MHz 4500 MHz
Power (Max TDP) 140 watts 80 watts
Bandwidth 144192 MB/sec 72000 MB/sec
Texel Rate 78400 Mtexels/sec 40000 Mtexels/sec
Pixel Rate 23520 Mpixels/sec 16000 Mpixels/sec
Unified Shaders 960 640
Texture Mapping Units 80 40
Render Output Units 24 16
Bus Type GDDR5 GDDR5
Bus Width 192-bit 128-bit
Fab Process 28 nm 28 nm
Transistors 2540 million 1500 million
Bus PCIe 3.0 x16 PCIe 3.0 x16
DirectX Version DirectX 11.0 DirectX 11.1
OpenGL Version OpenGL 4.3 OpenGL 4.2

Memory Bandwidth: Bandwidth is the maximum amount of data (in units of megabytes per second) that can be transferred past the external memory interface in a second. The number is worked out by multiplying the interface width by the speed of its memory. If it uses DDR RAM, it should be multiplied by 2 once again. If it uses DDR5, multiply by ANOTHER 2x. The better the memory bandwidth, the better the card will be in general. It especially helps with anti-aliasing, HDR and high resolutions.

Texel Rate: Texel rate is the maximum number of texture map elements (texels) that can be applied per second. This figure is calculated by multiplying the total number of texture units of the card by the core clock speed of the chip. The better this number, the better the card will be at handling texture filtering (anisotropic filtering - AF). It is measured in millions of texels in a second.

Pixel Rate: Pixel rate is the maximum amount of pixels that the graphics chip can possibly record to its local memory per second - measured in millions of pixels per second. The figure is calculated by multiplying the amount of colour ROPs by the the core clock speed. ROPs (Raster Operations Pipelines - sometimes also referred to as Render Output Units) are responsible for filling the screen with pixels (the image). The actual pixel rate also depends on many other factors, especially the memory bandwidth - the lower the bandwidth is, the lower the potential to reach the max fill rate.


Be the first to leave a comment!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

WordPress Anti-Spam by WP-SpamShield