OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 OEM review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£200VRAM:1 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):130 W

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 OEM Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 OEM
4.6/10

Overall score

Score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

40%

3.6

Technical score

25%

3.6

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.6

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 99% of graphics cards
6.1

Value for money

Value for money
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

70%

4.6

Overall score

30%

9.5

Price

â–¼Worse than 96%
3.6

Technical score

Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components

44%

1.8

Performance

24%

2.3

Memory

12%

7.7

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.6

Design

4%

6.4

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 97%
3.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models

3.6

Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 98%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-oem
nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-oem
Where to buy
    N/A~ £200
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 OEM

Based on 0 · 3

Reviewers largely agree it delivers solid gaming performance, with just a few finding it lacking.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 OEM

Based on 205 owners sharing their experience in online comments

65%positive15%mixed20%negative

Owners praise its strong gaming performance, while demanding newer games expose its age and limited headroom.

What owners dislike

  • Newer demanding games like Assassin's Creed Unity were unplayable, and others such as Red Dead Redemption 2 need 720p.40
  • Some owners see games freeze or crash, such as Metro Exodus, Assassin's Creed Valhalla and Dead by Daylight.6
  • Some cards start showing artifacts or die after a few years, and one owner got a warranty replacement.6
  • Gaming temperatures reach about 70 to 80°C, and owners fit larger fans or new thermal pads, especially for video memory.5
  • Newer drivers can fail to install or crash in some games, and owners say the older 378 version runs most stably.3
  • Heavy games can run short of video memory, and one owner saw lag start after about 10 minutes of play.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 OEM

Technical score
Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components:

44%

1.8

Performance

24%

2.3

Memory

12%

7.7

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.6

Design

4%

6.4

Connectivity

3.6
Reviews score
3.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components:

70%

4.6

Overall score

30%

9.5

Price

6.1
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,300 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 1,300 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 97.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
4,104 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 4,104 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 94.7% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
1,814 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 1,814 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 95.3% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
1.9 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 1.9 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 94.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
1 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 1 GB of VRAM, which is less than 98.2% of graphics cards and equal to 1.8% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
192 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 192 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 31.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 18.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
179 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 179 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 89.3% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
5,600 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 5,600 MHz, which is slower than that of 95.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 94.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.3
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.3, which is older than on 99.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.9% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
130 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 130 W, which is lower than that of 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
130 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 130 W under peak load, which is lower than 81% of graphics cards and equal to 3.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
450 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 450 W PSU, which is lower than that of 84% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.1% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
130 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 130 W, which is lower than that of 81.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.3% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
130 W
Show more
Size
241x 111x 38 mm
Length
241 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 241 mm long, which is shorter than 74.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.7% of graphics cards.
Height
111 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111 mm tall, which is shorter than 83.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,360 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,360 g, which is heavier than 68% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.7% of Graphics cards.
Show more

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 OEM vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 39.5% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (130 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    130 W vs 215 W
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 41.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (241 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    241 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 3 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (3 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    3 vs 0
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 40.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (130 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    130 W vs 220 W
  • 2.6x cheaper
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 OEM is cheaper than the average graphics card (£200 vs £520).
    £200 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:24 vs 1:64).
    1:24 vs 1:64
  • 3 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (3 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    3 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 39.5% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (130 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    130 W vs 215 W
  • 40.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (130 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    130 W vs 220 W
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 41.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (241 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    241 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 64.6% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (888 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    888 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 11 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (1 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    1 GB vs 12 GB
  • 50.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models

    3.6

    Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.6 vs 7.2
  • 35 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (5 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    5 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 57.1% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (823 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    823 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 50.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models

    3.6

    Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.6 vs 7.2
  • 53.8% lower sentiment score
    3.6 vs 7.8
  • 22.5% worse value for money
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 OEM has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.05 vs 7.4).
    6.05 vs 7.41
  • 64.6% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (888 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    888 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 35 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (5 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    5 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 57.1% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (823 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    823 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 77.4% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (85.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    85.25 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 86.8% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (21.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    21.31 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 88 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (96 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    96 vs 184
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 91.6% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (1.9 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    1.9 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 11 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2012 vs 2023).
    August 2012
    2012 vs 2023
  • 81.9% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (4,104 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    4,104 points vs 22,638 points
  • 91.2% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1,300 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    1,300 points vs 14,779 points
  • 85% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (1,814 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    1,814 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 93.6% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (1.9 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    1.9 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 81.3% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.09 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 3,200 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,152 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,152 vs 4,352
  • 11 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (1 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    1 GB vs 12 GB
  • 70.5% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (5,600 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    5,600 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 60% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (179 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    179 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 20% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,400 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,400 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (64 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    64 KB vs 128 KB
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5 vs 6.8).
    5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • Older OpenGL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenGL version than the average graphics card (4.3 vs 4.6).
    4.3 vs 4.6
  • 84.5% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (3,540 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    3,540 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1a).
    1.4a vs 2.1a
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (3 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    3 vs 6
  • 75% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 12.4 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (47.8 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    47.8 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 9 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (76 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    76 °C vs 67 °C
  • 26 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (26 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    26 dB vs 0 dB
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
29/05/2025
Hands-on review · older-game benchmarks at 1080p
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 OEM is easy to recommend for its low price, though its 1.5 GB of VRAM is the main limit.
8.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
24/05/2024
Hands-on benchmark · 1080p tests across ten games
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 OEM is a decent card if you can find one, mainly for reviving older PCs.
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 OEM

  • Capable of handling older titles like GTA V and Skyrim at high settings at 1080p.
  • Small form factor and low power draw (130W) requiring only a single 6-pin connector.
  • Solid entry-level or budget choice for esports titles like Fortnite, Valorant, and Counter-Strike.
  • Generally operates quietly and maintains low temperatures under normal load.
  • Support for modern features like GPU Boost and PhysX.

What customers don't like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 OEM

  • Limited 1.5GB to 2GB VRAM is insufficient for modern AAA games, often causing crashes or 'slideshow' performance.
  • DirectX 12 support is limited to feature level 11_0, causing compatibility issues with newer titles.
  • Significant performance drop-off in modern games like Cyberpunk 2077 or Metro Exodus.
  • The 192-bit memory bus can become a bottleneck at higher resolutions or with complex textures.
  • Lacks modern NVIDIA features such as DLSS, ShadowPlay, or Ray Tracing (RTX).

Verdict

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 OEM is a mid-range graphics card released in August 2012, uniquely built on the GK104 Kepler architecture rather than the GK106 chip used in the standard retail version. It features 1,152 CUDA cores, a base clock of 823 MHz with a boost up to 888 MHz, and either 1.5 GB or 3 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit interface. Its main pros include an efficient 130W TDP requiring only a single 6-pin power connector and significantly more shading units (1,152 vs. 960) than the retail model, which helps maintain solid performance in legacy 1080p gaming. However, its main cons are the lower base clock speeds compared to retail editions and limited memory capacity in the 1.5 GB variant, which causes performance bottlenecks or crashes in modern AAA titles.

Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 OEM with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 OEM and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found