NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 160M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 and NVIDIA GeForce GTS 160M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- 4.1x more texture fill rate: 78.4 billion / sec vs 19 billion / sec
- 15x more pipelines: 960 vs 64
- 10.3x better floating-point performance: 1,981 gflops vs 192 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- 5.9x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3999 vs 679
- Around 56% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 479 vs 308
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3365 vs 3221
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3365 vs 3221
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 6 September 2012 vs 3 March 2009 |
Texture fill rate | 78.4 billion / sec vs 19 billion / sec |
Pipelines | 960 vs 64 |
Floating-point performance | 1,981 gflops vs 192 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3999 vs 679 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 479 vs 308 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3365 vs 3221 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3365 vs 3221 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 160M
- Around 53% higher core clock speed: 1500 MHz vs 980 MHz
- 2.3x lower typical power consumption: 60 Watt vs 140 Watt
Core clock speed | 1500 MHz vs 980 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 60 Watt vs 140 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 160M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 160M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3999 | 679 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 479 | 308 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 11370 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 30.505 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 705.293 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.085 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.416 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 62.69 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3581 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3690 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3365 | 3221 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3581 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3690 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3365 | 3221 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1307 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 160M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Kepler | Tesla |
Code name | GK106 | G94 |
Launch date | 6 September 2012 | 3 March 2009 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | |
Place in performance rating | 776 | 777 |
Price now | $349.99 | |
Type | Desktop | Laptop |
Value for money (0-100) | 14.35 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1033 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 1500 MHz |
CUDA cores | 960 | 64 |
Floating-point performance | 1,981 gflops | 192 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
Pipelines | 960 | 64 |
Texture fill rate | 78.4 billion / sec | 19 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 140 Watt | 60 Watt |
Transistor count | 2,540 million | 505 million |
Gigaflops | 288 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Audio input for HDMI | Internal | S / PDIF |
Display Connectors | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI..., 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | VGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVI |
G-SYNC support | ||
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 9.5" (24.1 cm) | |
Supplementary power connectors | One 6-pin | |
Laptop size | large | |
MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | |
SLI options | 2-way | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.3 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 144.2 GB / s | 51 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 192-bit GDDR5 | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
3D Gaming | ||
3D Vision | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
CUDA | ||
FXAA | ||
GPU Boost | ||
SLI | ||
TXAA | ||
HybridPower | ||
Power management | 8.0 | |
PureVideo HD |