Radeon 660M
VS
GeForce RTX 4070

Radeon 660M vs GeForce RTX 4070

AMD

Radeon 660M

2023Core: 1500 MHzBoost: 1900 MHz
VS
NVIDIA

GeForce RTX 4070

2023Core: 1920 MHzBoost: 2475 MHz

Performance Spectrum - GPU

About G3D Mark

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The Radeon 660M is positioned at rank #399 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Radeon 660M

#389
Radeon RX 550X (móvel)
MSRP: $35|Avg: $35
1349%
#391
1223%
#392
1219%
#396
GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50
1109%
#397
Radeon RX 6300
MSRP: $60|Avg: $40
1101%
#399
Radeon 660M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A
100%
#400
Radeon R9 M290X
MSRP: $400|Avg: $60
100%
#401
Radeon HD 7670
MSRP: $100|Avg: $25
100%
#402
Radeon HD 8550G + 8750M Dual
MSRP: $100|Avg: $100
99%
#403
Mobility Radeon HD 5000
MSRP: $99|Avg: $20
97%
#404
Iris Pro Graphics 5200
MSRP: $150|Avg: $40
97%
#406
97%
#407
Radeon HD 8650G + 7700M Dual
MSRP: $150|Avg: $30
93%
#408
Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire
MSRP: $800|Avg: $200
93%
#409
GeForce GTX 285M SLI
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $40
91%
#410
Radeon R7 M260X
MSRP: $139|Avg: $35
91%
#411
90%
#412
Intel UHD Graphics 615
MSRP: $100|Avg: $50
89%
#413
Radeon R7 A365
MSRP: $109|Avg: $55
89%
#414
Radeon 3015e
MSRP: $49|Avg: $49
89%
Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce RTX 4070

#38
Arc A750
MSRP: $289|Avg: $229
112%
#39
Radeon RX 6800
MSRP: $579|Avg: $370
111%
#40
GeForce RTX 3060 8GB
MSRP: $329|Avg: $280
111%
#41
Radeon RX 6750 XT
MSRP: $549|Avg: $320
110%
#42
GeForce RTX 4070 Ti
MSRP: $799|Avg: $590
109%
#43
GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16GB
MSRP: $429|Avg: $429
108%
#44
GeForce RTX 5070
MSRP: $549|Avg: $550
107%
#45
Radeon RX 7600 XT
MSRP: $329|Avg: $330
107%
#46
GeForce RTX 2050
MSRP: $150|Avg: $150
105%
#47
GeForce RTX 3080
MSRP: $699|Avg: $400
105%
#48
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB
MSRP: $499|Avg: $449
103%
#49
Radeon RX 7900 GRE
MSRP: $549|Avg: $540
103%
#50
GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER
MSRP: $599|Avg: $600
102%
#51
Radeon RX 7800 XT
MSRP: $499|Avg: $490
101%
#52
GeForce RTX 3060 12GB
MSRP: $329|Avg: $340
101%
#53
GeForce RTX 4070
MSRP: $599|Avg: $550
100%
#54
Radeon RX 7650 GRE
MSRP: $279|Avg: $380
99%
#55
GeForce RTX 2060 12GB
MSRP: $470|Avg: $120
99%
#56
Arc A770
MSRP: $349|Avg: $280
97%
#57
Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12GB
MSRP: $289|Avg: $423
97%
#58
Arc A380
MSRP: $149|Avg: $119
95%
#59
Radeon RX 9070
MSRP: $549|Avg: $550
94%
#60
Radeon RX 7900 XT
MSRP: $899|Avg: $630
94%
#61
GeForce RTX 4080
MSRP: $1199|Avg: $800
84%
#62
Arc A310
MSRP: $100|Avg: $100
82%
#63
GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER
MSRP: $799|Avg: $800
81%
#64
Radeon RX 9070 XT
MSRP: $599|Avg: $700
79%
#65
GeForce RTX 5070 Ti
MSRP: $749|Avg: $850
78%
#66
Radeon RX 6900 XT
MSRP: $999|Avg: $385
78%
#67
GeForce GTX 1630
MSRP: $150|Avg: $90
75%
#68
GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER
MSRP: $999|Avg: $999
70%
Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce RTX 4070 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 735.7% higher G3D Mark score and 500% more VRAM (12 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon 660M.

InsightRadeon 660MGeForce RTX 4070
Performance
Lower raw frame rates (-735.7%)
Leading raw performance (+735.7%)
Longevity
RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (6nm)
🏆Elite Architecture (Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) / 5nm)
Ecosystem
Supports FSR Upscaling
✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support
VRAM
❌ Less VRAM capacity
🎮 High Capacity (12 GB)
Efficiency
⚡ Higher Power Consumption
💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit
Standard Size (304mm)

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce RTX 4070 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon 660M and GeForce RTX 4070

AMD

Radeon 660M

The Radeon 660M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 3 2023. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1500 MHz to 1900 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 40W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 6 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,221 points.

NVIDIA

GeForce RTX 4070

The GeForce RTX 4070 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 12 2023. It features the Ada Lovelace architecture. The core clock ranges from 1920 MHz to 2475 MHz. It has 5888 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 200W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 46 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 26,919 points. Launch price was $599.

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the Radeon 660M scores 3,221 versus the GeForce RTX 4070's 26,919 — the GeForce RTX 4070 leads by 735.7%. The Radeon 660M is built on RDNA 2.0 while the GeForce RTX 4070 uses Ada Lovelace, both on 6 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 384 (Radeon 660M) vs 5,888 (GeForce RTX 4070). Raw compute: 1.459 TFLOPS (Radeon 660M) vs 29.15 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 4070). Boost clocks: 1900 MHz vs 2475 MHz. Ray tracing: 6 RT cores (Radeon 660M) vs 46 (GeForce RTX 4070) vs 184.

FeatureRadeon 660MGeForce RTX 4070
G3D Mark Score
3,221
26,919+736%
Architecture
RDNA 2.0
Ada Lovelace
Process Node
6 nm
5 nm
Shading Units
384
5888+1433%
Compute (TFLOPS)
1.459 TFLOPS
29.15 TFLOPS+1898%
Boost Clock
1900 MHz
2475 MHz+30%
ROPs
16
64+300%
TMUs
24
184+667%
L1 Cache
0.13 MB
5.8 MB+4362%
L2 Cache
2 MB
36 MB+1700%
Ray Tracing Cores
6
46+667%

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

A critical advantage for the GeForce RTX 4070 is support for DLSS 3 Frame Gen. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The Radeon 660M lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.

FeatureRadeon 660MGeForce RTX 4070
Upscaling Tech
FSR 1.0 (Software)
DLSS 3.5
Frame Generation
Not Supported
DLSS 3.0 (Native)
Ray Reconstruction
No
Yes (DLSS 3.5)
Low Latency
AMD Anti-Lag
NVIDIA Reflex
💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Radeon 660M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce RTX 4070 has 12 GB. The GeForce RTX 4070 offers 500% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: System vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Radeon 660M) vs 36 MB (GeForce RTX 4070) — the GeForce RTX 4070 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

FeatureRadeon 660MGeForce RTX 4070
VRAM Capacity
2 GB
12 GB+500%
Memory Type
Shared
GDDR6X
Memory Bandwidth
System
504 GB/s
Bus Width
System
192-bit
L2 Cache
2 MB
36 MB+1700%
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon 660M draws 40W versus the GeForce RTX 4070's 200W — a 133.3% difference. The Radeon 660M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon 660M) vs 650W (GeForce RTX 4070). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 8-pin.

FeatureRadeon 660MGeForce RTX 4070
TDP
40W-80%
200W
Recommended PSU
350W-46%
650W
Power Connector
PCIe-powered
8-pin
Length
304mm
Height
137mm
Slots
3
Temp (Load)
80°C
Perf/Watt
80.5
134.6+67%