AMD Radeon 660M vs AMD Radeon RX 7700 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 7700 than the AMD Radeon 660M in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RX 7700 scores 106,028 points, which is 723.5% higher than the 660M’s 12,876 points. That makes it the only directly comparable benchmark between the two, and the RX 7700 wins it outright.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700 has an average benchmark score of 15,852, while the AMD Radeon 660M averages 13,812. The RX 7700 sits at the 58th percentile among all GPUs, and the 660M sits at the 55th percentile.

Q: Which GPUs are closest in performance to the AMD Radeon RX 7700?

A: According to the database, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R9 370X (average score 15,862, delta -0.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 (average score 16,014, delta -1%), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (average score 15,679, delta +1.1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (average score 16,129, delta -1.7%).

Q: Which GPUs are closest in performance to the AMD Radeon 660M?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (average score 13,821, delta -0.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 570X (average score 13,871, delta -0.4%), the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT (average score 13,745, delta +0.5%), and the NVIDIA Tesla K10 (average score 14,029, delta -1.5%).

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700 is listed as “Active” in production, while the AMD Radeon 660M is marked as “End-of-life.”

Q: When were the two GPUs released?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700 has a release date of September 17, 2025, and the AMD Radeon 660M has a release date of January 3, 2022.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 is built on the Navi 32 chip, using the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the codename “Wheat Nas.” It belongs to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. The AMD Radeon 660M uses the Rembrandt chip, based on the older RDNA 2.0 architecture, and is classified under the Navi II IGP (Rembrandt Mobile) generation. This generational gap explains several fundamental differences in design goals: the RX 7700 is a discrete, dual-slot graphics card, while the 660M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) designed for portable devices.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The RX 7700 is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the 660M uses a 6 nm process, also from TSMC. The transistor counts reflect the scale of each chip: the RX 7700 packs 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, whereas the 660M has 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 81.2 million per mm² for the RX 7700 versus 63.0 million per mm² for the 660M.

Core configuration diverges sharply. The RX 7700 has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 96 render output units, and 40 ray tracing cores. The 660M, by contrast, has only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. The RX 7700’s raw throughput numbers are far higher: it delivers 25.18 TFLOPS FP32 and the same 25.18 TFLOPS FP16 (at a 1:1 ratio), while the 660M manages only 1,459.2 GFLOPS FP32 and 2.918 TFLOPS FP16 (at a 2:1 ratio). Pixel and texture rates follow suit, with the RX 7700 hitting 236.1 GPixel/s and 393.4 GTexel/s, versus 30.40 GPixel/s and 45.60 GTexel/s for the 660M.

Memory architecture is another major split. The RX 7700 has 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, with 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The 660M uses System Shared memory, meaning its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system-dependent. Clock speeds also differ: the RX 7700 has a base clock of 1900 MHz, a boost of 2459 MHz, and a game clock of 2041 MHz, while the 660M runs at a 1500 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost.

Power and connectivity further separate the two. The RX 7700 has a 200 W TDP, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 550 W power supply. It uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface and offers display outputs of 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, and 1x USB Type-C. The 660M has a 40 W TDP, no power connectors, a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, and its display outputs are portable-device dependent. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes only one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD Radeon RX 7700 scores 106,028, and the AMD Radeon 660M scores 12,876. The delta is a massive 723.5% in favor of the RX 7700, making it the clear winner in compute performance as measured by OpenCL.

This single result is decisive in terms of raw compute throughput. The RX 7700’s score of 106,028 is more than eight times that of the 660M’s 12,876. For context, the 660M’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile, averages 13,821, and the 660M is only 0.1% behind that. Meanwhile, the RX 7700’s average score of 15,852 places it near the AMD Radeon R9 370X (15,862, -0.1%) and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 (16,014, -1%). This shows that the RX 7700 occupies a performance tier far above the 660M, even when comparing their overall averages rather than just the OpenCL result.

It is worth remembering the 660M does have an additional benchmark result: Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 14,748. The RX 7700 does not have a corresponding Vulkan score in the database, so no direct comparison can be made there. However, the OpenCL result alone demonstrates an overwhelming advantage for the RX 7700 in general-purpose GPU compute.

Specification Differences

The table below outlines the key specification differences between the two GPUs, based solely on the recorded data.

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 7700 | AMD Radeon 660M |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Generation | Navi III (RX 7000) | Navi II IGP (Rembrandt Mobile) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 28,100 million | 13,100 million |

| Die Size | 346 mm² | 208 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 81.2M / mm² | 63.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1900 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2459 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Game Clock | 2041 MHz | Not available |

| Memory Size | 16 GB GDDR6 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 624.1 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 384 |

| TMUs | 160 | 24 |

| ROPs | 96 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 236.1 GPixel/s | 30.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 393.4 GTexel/s | 45.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 25.18 TFLOPS | 1,459.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 25.18 TFLOPS (1:1) | 2.918 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 200 W | 40 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | Not available |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 267 mm (10.5 inches) length, 135 mm (5.3 inches) height, 50 mm (2 inches) width | Not available |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2025-09-17 | 2022-01-03 |

| Predecessor | Navi II | Vega II IGP |

| Successor | Navi IV | Navi III IGP |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, and it wins by a staggering margin. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 106,028 versus 12,876 represents a 723.5% advantage. This is not a marginal victory; it is a complete dominance in compute workloads that stress FP32 throughput, memory bandwidth, and shading units. The RX 7700’s 25.18 TFLOPS FP32, 624.1 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 2560 shading units are all designed for high-end gaming and professional rendering, and the benchmark data confirms that this translates into a decisive performance lead.

The AMD Radeon 660M, by contrast, does not win any recorded benchmark against the RX 7700. Its only wins are contextual: it is an IGP with a 40 W TDP, meaning it consumes far less power and requires no additional power connectors. It also has a smaller die (208 mm² vs. 346 mm²) and fewer transistors (13,100 million vs. 28,100 million), which makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where space and thermal headroom are limited. The 660M’s 6 nm process and RDNA 2.0 architecture are older, but they deliver a functional level of performance for its intended use case.

In terms of raw compute, the RX 7700 is the clear winner. In terms of efficiency and form factor, the 660M has the advantage, though this is not reflected in any benchmark score. The 660M’s percentile rank of 55 versus the RX 7700’s 58 shows that both GPUs are near the middle of the overall performance distribution, but the average benchmark scores tell a different story: 15,852 for the RX 7700 versus 13,812 for the 660M, a 14.8% gap in favor of the RX 7700.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 7700 is the superior performer in every measurable benchmark. Its 723.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with its higher average benchmark score (15,852 vs. 13,812) and better percentile ranking (58 vs. 55), makes it the obvious choice for any workload that demands high compute performance, such as gaming at high resolutions, 3D rendering, or GPU-accelerated computation.

The AMD Radeon 660M should be selected only in scenarios where its integrated nature is the deciding factor. It has a 40 W TDP, no power connectors, and a portable-device-dependent display output, which means it is designed for laptops and compact systems where a discrete GPU is not an option. Its 6 nm process and lower transistor count also contribute to a smaller footprint, though it cannot match the RX 7700 in any performance metric recorded in the database.

For a desktop user who can accommodate a dual-slot, 200 W graphics card with two 8-pin connectors, the RX 7700 is the clear choice. It is active in production, uses the newer RDNA 3.0 architecture, and offers 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth. The 660M, being end-of-life and limited to system-shared memory, cannot compete on any level of raw performance. The verdict, strictly from the recorded data, is that the RX 7700 wins on every benchmark, and the 660M wins only on power efficiency and form factor suitability for mobile devices.