Recommended System Requirements | ||
---|---|---|
Game | GeForce GTX 660 Gigabyte OC 2GB Edition SLI | FirePro S9150 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 28% | 62% |
Hitman 3 | 66% | 111% |
Assassins Creed: Valhalla | 17% | 48% |
Resident Evil 8 | 28% | 62% |
FIFA 21 | 36% | 18% |
Grand Theft Auto VI | 80% | 128% |
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War | 13% | 44% |
Genshin Impact | 28% | 62% |
The Medium | 59% | 103% |
Far Cry 6 | 85% | 135% |
In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 Gigabyte OC 2GB Edition SLI are noticeably better than the AMD FirePro S9150.
The GTX 660 has a 133 MHz higher core clock speed but 16 fewer Texture Mapping Units than the FirePro S9150. The lower TMU count doesn't matter, though, as altogether the GTX 660 manages to provide 6.9 GTexel/s better texturing performance. This still holds weight but shader performance is generally more relevant, particularly since both of these GPUs support at least DirectX 10.
The GTX 660 has a 133 MHz higher core clock speed than the FirePro S9150, but the FirePro S9150 has 16 more Render Output Units than the GTX 660. As a result, the FirePro S9150 exhibits a 8 GPixel/s better Pixel Fill Rate than the GTX 660. However, both GPUs support DirectX 9 or above, and pixeling performance is only really relevant when comparing older cards.
The FirePro S9150 was released over a year more recently than the GTX 660, and so the FirePro S9150 is likely to have better driver support, meaning it will be more optimized for running the latest games when compared to the GTX 660.
Both GPUs exhibit very powerful performance, so it probably isn't worth upgrading from one to the other, as both are capable of running even the most demanding games at the highest settings.
The FirePro S9150 has 12288 MB more video memory than the GTX 660, so is likely to be much better at displaying game textures at higher resolutions. This is supported by the fact that the FirePro S9150 also has superior memory performance overall.
The FirePro S9150 has 31.6 GB/sec greater memory bandwidth than the GTX 660, which means that the memory performance of the FirePro S9150 is noticeably better than the GTX 660.
The GeForce GTX 660 Gigabyte OC 2GB Edition SLI has 1920 Shader Processing Units and the FirePro S9150 has 2816. However, the actual shader performance of the GTX 660 is 2108 and the actual shader performance of the FirePro S9150 is 2534. The FirePro S9150 having 426 better shader performance is not particularly notable, as altogether the GTX 660 performs better when taking into account other relevant data.
The GeForce GTX 660 Gigabyte OC 2GB Edition SLI requires 260 Watts to run and the FirePro S9150 requires 235 Watts. We would recommend a PSU with at least 600 Watts for the GTX 660. The GTX 660 requires 25 Watts more than the FirePro S9150 to run. The difference is not significant enough for the GTX 660 to have a noticeably larger impact on your yearly electricity bills than the FirePro S9150.
Core Speed | 1033 MHz | ![]() | vs | 900 MHz | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boost Clock | 1098 MHz | ![]() | vs | - | |
Architecture | Kepler GK106-400-A1 (x2) | GCN 2.0 Hawaii XT GL | |||
OC Potential | Poor | vs |
![]() | Good | |
Driver Support | Good |
![]() | vs | - | |
Release Date | 01 Sep 2012 | vs | ![]() | 01 Aug 2014 | |
GPU Link | GD Link | GD Link | |||
Approved | ![]() | ![]() | |||
Comparison |
1366x768 | - | ![]() |
vs | ![]() |
- |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1600x900 | - | ![]() |
vs | ![]() |
- |
1920x1080 | 9.3
|
![]() |
vs | - | |
2560x1440 | - | ![]() |
vs | ![]() |
- |
3840x2160 | - | ![]() |
vs | ![]() |
- |
Memory | 4096 MB | vs | ![]() | 16384 MB | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Memory Speed | 1502 MHz | ![]() | vs | 1250 MHz | |
Memory Bus | 384 Bit | vs | ![]() | 512 Bit | |
Memory Type | GDDR5 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | GDDR5 |
Memory Bandwidth | 288.4GB/sec | vs | ![]() | 320GB/sec | |
L2 Cache | 768 KB | vs | ![]() |
1024 KB | |
Delta Color Compression | no | vs | no | ||
Memory Performance | 0% | ![]() |
vs | ![]() |
0% |
Comparison |
Shader Processing Units | 1920 | vs | ![]() | 2816 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Shader Performance | 100% | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 100% |
Technology | 28nm | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 28nm |
Texture Mapping Units | 160 | vs | ![]() | 176 | |
Texture Rate | 165.3 GTexel/s | ![]() | vs | 158.4 GTexel/s | |
Render Output Units | 48 | vs | ![]() | 64 | |
Pixel Rate | 49.6 GPixel/s | vs | ![]() | 57.6 GPixel/s | |
Comparison |
Max Digital Resolution (WxH) | 4096x2160 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 4096x2160 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
VGA Connections | 0 | vs | 0 | ||
DVI Connections | 2 | ![]() | vs | 0 | |
HDMI Connections | 1 | ![]() | vs | 0 | |
DisplayPort Connections | - | vs | - | ||
Comparison |
Max Power | 260 Watts | vs | ![]() | 235 Watts | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recommended PSU | 600 Watts & 42 Amps | - |
DirectX | 12.0 | ![]() | vs | 11.2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Shader Model | 5.0 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 5.0 |
Open GL | 4.5 | ![]() | vs | 4.2 | |
Open CL | - | vs | - | ||
Notebook GPU | no | no | |||
SLI/Crossfire | no | vs | ![]() | yes | |
Dedicated | yes | ![]() | vs | ![]() | yes |
Comparison |
Recommended Processor | Intel Core i5-3470 3.2GHz | ![]() | vs | Intel Xeon E7-8890 v2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recommended RAM | 8 GB | ![]() | vs | 16 GB | |
Maximum Recommended Gaming Resolution | 1920x1080 | vs | ![]() | 5760x1600 |
Performance Value | ![]() |
---|
Mini Review | The SLI setup of GeForce GTX 660 Gigabyte OC 2GB Edition. | FirePro S9150 is a server GPU based on the 28nm GCN architecture. It's based on the Hawaii XT Core (same used on Radeon R9 290X) and therefore offers 2816 Shader Processing Units, 176 TMUs and 64 ROPs on a 512-bit interface of fast GDDR5. The central unit is clocked 900MHz while the memory clock operates at 1250MHZ. Compared to Radeon R9 290X, its central unit is slightly lower and overall its gaming performance is lower than Radeon R9 290X because the latter benefits from certified gaming drivers which unlock the GCN's architecture potential while FirePro S9150 is made for professional applications. Therefore, expect its performance to be between 10% and 15% worse than Radeon R9 290X. |
---|
Recommended CPU | - | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Possible GPU Upgrades | - | - | |||
GPU Variants | - | - |