AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 and the AMD Radeon R7 250, and it is a decisive one. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 660 scores 11,347 points against the R7 250's 7,557 points. The recorded delta is 50.2% in favor of NVIDIA's card. That is not a marginal gap; it is a fundamental performance chasm. The GTX 660 more than doubles the R7 250's compute output in this particular workload, and the margin is large enough that no amount of driver tuning or overclocking on the AMD side would realistically close it.

Looking at the broader context, the GTX 660's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 9,022, which places it at the 45th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in the aggregate scoring are the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition at 9,037 (a 0.2% delta), the GeForce GTX 560 at 9,058 (a 0.4% delta), the AMD Radeon 550X at 8,918 (a 1.2% delta), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 at 8,863 (a 1.8% delta). This clustering suggests the GTX 660 sits in a tightly contested performance tier, where a few points separate it from both much newer and much older hardware. The R7 250, by contrast, has an average score of 7,557, which puts it at the 41st percentile. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A310 at 7,550 (a 0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 at 7,580 (a 0.3% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7,472 (a 1.1% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7,447 (a 1.5% delta). The R7 250 is essentially neck-and-neck with those cards, all of which sit in a similar performance envelope.

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the GTX 660 wins the only shared benchmark, and it does so by a margin that dwarfs the deltas seen among either card's nearest rivals. The question is not whether the GTX 660 is faster, but whether the R7 250 has any redeeming qualities that make it relevant for specific use cases. The benchmark results suggest that for raw compute, the R7 250 is simply out of its league. The 50.2% delta is nearly three times larger than the biggest gap between the GTX 660 and its closest competitors, which means the R7 250 is not just a step behind, it is in a different performance class entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 660 wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, so it is the clear victor in compute-heavy tasks. The OpenCL score of 11,347 versus 7,557 translates to a 50.2% advantage, which means the GTX 660 is the card to choose for any workload that leverages general-purpose GPU compute. This includes tasks like video encoding, physics simulation, and any OpenCL-accelerated application. The GTX 660 also has a higher pixel rate (20.64 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s) and a substantially higher texture rate (82.56 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s), which suggests it will also dominate in traditional rasterization workloads, even though no game-specific benchmarks are recorded in the database.

The R7 250, on the other hand, has no benchmark wins in the database. Its sole recorded score is the OpenCL result, and it loses that by a wide margin. However, the data does show areas where the R7 250 is not merely a slower card, but a more efficient one. Its TDP is 55 W versus the GTX 660's 140 W, and it requires no power connectors, while the GTX 660 needs a single 6-pin connector. The R7 250 also has a lower suggested PSU rating of 250 W compared to the GTX 660's 300 W. This means the R7 250 is the better choice for systems with weak power supplies, small form factor cases, or where heat output is a primary concern. It is a single-slot card at 168 mm in length, while the GTX 660 is dual-slot and 241 mm long. For a compact build or an older prebuilt PC with a modest PSU, the R7 250 is the only viable option despite its performance deficit.

The use-case split is therefore stark: the GTX 660 is for anyone who needs performance, while the R7 250 is for anyone who needs a low-power, physically small card that can still output a display. The R7 250's 1,024 MB of DDR3 memory and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth are far below the GTX 660's 2 GB of GDDR5 and 144.2 GB/s, so it will struggle with modern game textures or compute datasets. But if the goal is a silent, low-power media PC or a basic office machine, the R7 250's 55 W draw is a feature, not a bug.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the recorded benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 wins the only head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 11,347 against the AMD Radeon R7 250's 7,557, a 50.2% difference.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of average benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 660 has an average benchmark score of 9,022, while the R7 250 averages 7,557. The GTX 660 sits at the 45th percentile of all GPUs, and the R7 250 sits at the 41st percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card based on average score?

A: The GTX 660's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition (9,037, 0.2% higher), GeForce GTX 560 (9,058, 0.4% higher), AMD Radeon 550X (8,918, 1.2% lower), and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863, 1.8% lower). The R7 250's nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, 0.1% lower), AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580, 0.3% higher), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472, 1.1% lower), and AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, 1.5% lower).

Q: Does the R7 250 have any advantage over the GTX 660?

A: Yes, the R7 250 has a much lower TDP of 55 W compared to 140 W, requires no power connectors, and has a lower suggested PSU rating of 250 W versus 300 W. It is also a single-slot, 168 mm card versus the GTX 660's dual-slot, 241 mm design.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The GTX 660 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus with 144.2 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 250 has 1,024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The R7 250 has a slightly higher transistor density at 12.2M / mm², while the GTX 660 has 11.5M / mm². However, the GTX 660 has more total transistors (2,540 million versus 1,500 million) and a larger die size (221 mm² versus 123 mm²).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 660 is built on the GK106 chip with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The GTX 660 has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1,032 MHz, while the R7 250 has no recorded base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are also different: the GTX 660 runs at 1,502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the R7 250 runs at 900 MHz with 1,800 Mbps effective.

The memory subsystem is a major differentiator. The GTX 660 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 144.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 250 has 1,024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding only 28.80 GB/s. This is a fivefold difference in bandwidth, which explains the large performance gap in memory-intensive workloads.

The compute units also differ substantially. The GTX 660 has 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 20.64 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 82.56 GTexel/s for the GTX 660, versus 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s for the R7 250. The FP32 throughput is 1.981 TFLOPS for the GTX 660 and 947.2 GFLOPS for the R7 250, a difference of over 2x.

Power and physical specifications are also miles apart. The GTX 660 has a TDP of 140 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and a suggested 300 W PSU. It is dual-slot and 241 mm long. The R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W, requires no power connectors, and a suggested 250 W PSU. It is single-slot and 168 mm long. The GTX 660 has two DVI outputs, one HDMI 1.4a, and one DisplayPort 1.2. The R7 250 has one DVI, one HDMI 1.4a, and one DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 660 was released on 2012-09-05, while the R7 250 was released on 2013-10-07. The GTX 660 has a launch MSRP of 229 USD; the R7 250 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is significant. The GTX 660 is based on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, specifically the GK106 chip, and belongs to the GeForce 600 generation. The R7 250 is based on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Cape Verde chip, and belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the GTX 660 has a lower transistor density (11.5M / mm²) versus the R7 250's 12.2M / mm². The GTX 660 uses a larger die to pack in more transistors, while the R7 250 achieves a slightly higher density on a smaller die.

The API support differs in one key area: the GTX 660 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan, with the GTX 660 having Vulkan 1.2.175 and the R7 250 having Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 660 has no RT or tensor cores, and neither does the R7 250, so ray tracing and AI acceleration are absent from both.

The memory architecture is also a reflection of their different design philosophies. The GTX 660 uses a 192-bit GDDR5 interface, which is a high-bandwidth design aimed at gaming. The R7 250 uses a 128-bit DDR3 interface, which is a low-cost, low-power design. The GTX 660's texture rate of 82.56 GTexel/s is more than double the R7 250's 29.60 GTexel/s, indicating that the GTX 660 has a much wider texture pipeline. The R7 250 does have a higher transistor density, but this is a minor consolation given the massive gap in raw throughput.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, and both have clear generational predecessors and successors. The GTX 660's predecessor is the GeForce 500 series and its successor is the GeForce 700 series. The R7 250's predecessor is the Sea Islands series and its successor is the Pirate Islands series. Neither card has any recorded FP16 performance, and both lack game clocks.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 is the superior card for any performance-oriented task. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 50.2%, has more than double the FP32 throughput (1.981 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS), and has nearly five times the memory bandwidth (144.2 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s). Its average benchmark score of 9,022 places it at the 45th percentile, while the R7 250's 7,557 sits at the 41st percentile. The GTX 660's nearest rivals include the TITAN V CEO Edition and GTX 560, which are much more powerful cards in other contexts, but the GTX 660 holds its own in this company. For anyone building a gaming PC or a workstation that needs compute performance, the GTX 660 is the obvious choice, provided the system can handle its 140 W TDP and dual-slot footprint.

The AMD Radeon R7 250 is not without a niche, however. Its 55 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and single-slot design make it ideal for compact or legacy systems with minimal power delivery. The suggested PSU of 250 W means it can run in almost any prebuilt office PC. Its 1,024 MB of DDR3 memory is enough for basic display output and light 2D workloads, but it will struggle with modern 3D applications. The R7 250's nearest rivals, including the Intel Arc A310 and GTX 1650, are all in a similar performance class, which suggests it is a competent low-end card for its era, but it is not a gaming card by any modern standard.

The verdict is straightforward: choose the GTX 660 if you need performance and have the power headroom. Choose the R7 250 if you need a low-power, physically small card for basic tasks and cannot accommodate the GTX 660's power draw or size. There is no scenario in the recorded data where the R7 250 outperforms the GTX 660, so the only reason to pick it is efficiency and form factor. The GTX 660 is the benchmark winner, the compute leader, and the better investment for anyone who values performance over power savings.