AMD FirePro W5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER Comparison

# The Verdict

The data presents a decisive picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER dominates the AMD FirePro W5100 in every measurable benchmark. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1660 SUPER scores 52,490 against the W5100's 11,888 — a 341.5% advantage. The Vulkan gap is nearly as stark: 57,102 versus 13,805, a 313.6% lead. With 2 wins to 0 in the head-to-head, there is no ambiguity.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The GTX 1660 SUPER posts an average of 12,986, placing it at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. The W5100 averages 12,847, sitting at the 52nd percentile. Despite the massive head-to-head victories, both cards hover within 1% of each other in aggregate performance, and their nearest rivals overlap. The GTX 1660 SUPER sits 0.4% above the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile and RX 580, while the W5100 sits 0.1% above the Radeon Pro 455 and GTX 590.

The verdict hinges on workload. If the task involves modern compute APIs like Vulkan or OpenCL — the GTX 1660 SUPER is the only rational choice. If the task is legacy or unspecified 3D rendering where average scores matter, the difference narrows dramatically. The W5100's single-slot, 50 W profile makes it attractive for constrained chassis, but the GTX 1660 SUPER's raw compute advantage is overwhelming. For anyone needing current API support and high throughput, the GTX 1660 SUPER wins outright.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras and design philosophies. The GTX 1660 SUPER uses the TU116 chip built on Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 6,600 million transistors into a 284 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². The W5100 uses the Bonaire chip on GCN 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, with a density of 13.0M per mm². The GTX 1660 SUPER is the denser, more modern part.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The GTX 1660 SUPER has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W5100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing just 96.00 GB/s. The GTX 1660 SUPER's memory clock runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the W5100's memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The bandwidth difference — 336.0 versus 96.00 GB/s — is a 250% gap that directly impacts texture-heavy workloads.

Compute resources favor the GTX 1660 SUPER. It features 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The W5100 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate tells the story: 85.68 GPixel/s for the GTX 1660 SUPER versus 14.88 GPixel/s for the W5100. Texture rate is 157.1 GTexel/s against 44.64 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 5.027 TFLOPS versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS — the GTX 1660 SUPER is roughly 3.5 times faster in raw floating-point compute. The GTX 1660 SUPER also supports FP16 at 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1), while the W5100 has no listed FP16 capability.

Power and physical design differ substantially. The GTX 1660 SUPER has a 125 W TDP, requires a 300 W suggested PSU, uses a dual-slot cooler, and needs one 8-pin power connector. It measures 229 mm (9 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) high, and 35 mm (1.4 inches) wide. The W5100 has a 50 W TDP, suggests a 250 W PSU, uses a single-slot cooler, and requires no power connectors. It measures 173 mm (6.8 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high, with no width listed. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces.

API support favors the newer card. The GTX 1660 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Display outputs also differ: the GTX 1660 SUPER has one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and one DisplayPort 1.4a; the W5100 has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two benchmarks appear in the head-to-head data, and the GTX 1660 SUPER wins both by enormous margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1660 SUPER scores 52,490 against the W5100's 11,888. That is a 341.5% delta — the GTX 1660 SUPER delivers more than four times the OpenCL compute performance. This result aligns with the FP32 specification gap: 5.027 TFLOPS versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 1660 SUPER scores 57,102 versus 13,805 for the W5100, a 313.6% delta. The Vulkan result is slightly closer than OpenCL but still represents a three-to-one advantage. The GTX 1660 SUPER's modern Turing architecture and Vulkan 1.4 support likely contribute to this margin, while the W5100's older GCN 2.0 design and Vulkan 1.2.170 support limit its ceiling.

The average benchmark scores complicate the picture. The GTX 1660 SUPER's average of 12,986 comes from ten benchmarks spanning DirectX 9 through DirectX 12 and compute tests. Its individual scores range from 50 in Passmark DirectX 12 to 12,699 in Passmark G3D. The W5100's average of 12,847 comes from just two benchmarks — the two Geekbench tests — which are far lower than its hypothetical aggregate would be if it had the same test suite. This explains why the W5100's average sits only 139 points below the GTX 1660 SUPER despite losing both head-to-head tests by over 300%.

The nearest rivals further contextualize these averages. The GTX 1660 SUPER's closest competitor is the Tesla M2090, which posts an average score of 13,075 — 0.7% higher. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile and RX 580 both average 12,940 and 12,928 respectively, sitting 0.4% below. The W5100's closest rival is the Radeon 740M at 12,870, which is 0.2% above it. Both cards occupy a similar performance tier in aggregate terms, despite their head-to-head disparity.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER wins decisively with a score of 52,490 versus the AMD FirePro W5100's 11,888, a 341.5% advantage.

Q: How do the two cards compare in average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER averages 12,986 across ten tests, while the W5100 averages 12,847 across two tests. The difference is only 139 points, roughly 1%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER delivers 336.0 GB/s from 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The W5100 provides 96.00 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a lower power requirement?

A: The AMD FirePro W5100 has a 50 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the GTX 1660 SUPER has a 125 W TDP and needs one 8-pin connector. The W5100 also suggests a 250 W PSU versus 300 W for the GTX 1660 SUPER.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different feature levels. The GTX 1660 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the W5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER has 1,408 shading units, compared to 768 on the W5100. The GTX 1660 SUPER also has 88 TMUs and 48 ROPs versus 48 TMUs and 16 ROPs on the W5100.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1660 SUPER wins in every compute-focused scenario. Its 341.5% OpenCL advantage and 313.6% Vulkan advantage make it the clear choice for any workload that leverages these APIs. The 5.027 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS means the GTX 1660 SUPER handles scientific computing, machine learning inference, and general-purpose GPU tasks far more effectively. Its 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth also makes it superior for large dataset transfers and texture-heavy rendering. The 6 GB frame buffer, while not massive, doubles the W5100's 4 GB capacity, allowing larger textures and higher-resolution render targets.

The W5100's wins are narrower but real. Its 50 W TDP and single-slot design make it ideal for dense server environments or compact workstations where space and power are at a premium. With no power connectors required and a 250 W suggested PSU, it can slot into systems that would struggle with the GTX 1660 SUPER's 125 W TDP and 300 W PSU requirement. The four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs give it multi-display flexibility that the GTX 1660 SUPER's single DVI, single HDMI 2.0, and single DisplayPort 1.4a cannot match — a key consideration for professional visualization setups. Its 173 mm length also fits into short chassis where the 229 mm GTX 1660 SUPER would not.

For pure 3D rendering performance, the GTX 1660 SUPER's Passmark G3D score of 12,699 and DirectX 11 score of 104 indicate strong legacy compatibility. The W5100 lacks these specific benchmark scores, but its 52nd percentile placement suggests it sits in a similar aggregate tier. The GTX 1660 SUPER's 53rd percentile ranking and 0.4% delta from the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile show it is competitive with much newer parts. The W5100's 0.1% delta from the Radeon Pro 455 and GTX 590 places it in a similar company.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, but the GTX 1660 SUPER's 2019 release date versus the W5100's 2014 release date reflects a five-year gap in design philosophy. The GTX 1660 SUPER's Turing architecture supports modern features like FP16 acceleration, while the W5100's GCN 2.0 architecture is firmly rooted in an earlier era. For any user choosing between these two in 2024, the GTX 1660 SUPER is the only sensible pick for compute workloads. The W5100's only compelling argument is its power efficiency and multi-display capability in constrained environments, but even that case is weakened by its lack of modern API support and dramatically lower compute throughput.