AMD Radeon 660M vs AMD Radeon Pro 5500M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 660M holds the higher average score at 13,812, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M averages 11,528. This places the 660M at the 55th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 51st percentile for the Pro 5500M.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M wins decisively in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 31,088 against the 660M's 12,876. That is a delta of 58.6% in favor of the Pro 5500M.

Q: What is the difference in their memory configurations?

A: The Radeon 660M uses System Shared memory with bandwidth described as System Dependent. The Radeon Pro 5500M has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a newer architecture?

A: The Radeon 660M uses RDNA 2.0, while the Radeon Pro 5500M is based on the older RDNA 1.0. The 660M also comes from a later generation, listed as Navi II IGP (Rembrandt Mobile).

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: No. The Radeon 660M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Radeon Pro 5500M only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two?

A: The Radeon 660M packs 13,100 million transistors, more than double the 6,400 million in the Radeon Pro 5500M. The 660M also uses a smaller 6 nm process versus the 7 nm process of the Pro 5500M.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two AMD GPUs is substantial. The Radeon 660M is built on RDNA 2.0, the architecture that brought hardware ray tracing to AMD's mainstream lineup. It is fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm node and integrates 13,100 million transistors into a 208 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 63.0 million per square millimeter. The Pro 5500M, in contrast, uses the original RDNA 1.0 architecture on TSMC's 7 nm node, with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, giving a density of 40.5 million per square millimeter.

The 660M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) within the Rembrandt mobile chip, meaning it has no dedicated memory. It relies on system shared memory, and its memory clock is listed simply as "System Shared" with bandwidth dependent on the host system. The Pro 5500M is a discrete mobile GPU with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a fundamental difference in how each chip accesses data.

In terms of compute resources, the Pro 5500M has far more shading units: 1,536 versus 384 for the 660M. It also has 96 texture mapping units versus 24, and 32 raster output pipelines versus 16. The 660M does include 6 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pro 5500M. The 660M also has a higher boost clock at 1900 MHz versus 1450 MHz for the Pro 5500M, but the Pro 5500M's massive shader count more than compensates in raw throughput.

The 660M's FP32 performance is 1,459.2 GFLOPS, while the Pro 5500M reaches 4.454 TFLOPS. Similarly, FP16 performance is 2.918 TFLOPS for the 660M versus 8.909 TFLOPS for the Pro 5500M. The Pro 5500M also has higher pixel and texture rates: 46.40 GPixel/s and 139.2 GTexel/s, respectively, compared to 30.40 GPixel/s and 45.60 GTexel/s for the 660M.

Power consumption differs sharply. The 660M is rated at 40 W TDP, while the Pro 5500M is rated at 85 W. The 660M is an IGP with no power connectors, while the Pro 5500M also has no power connectors listed, but its slot width is not specified. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8 interfaces.

The 660M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Pro 5500M is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The 660M was released on January 3, 2022, while the Pro 5500M came earlier on November 12, 2019. The 660M's predecessor is listed as Vega II IGP and its successor as Navi III IGP, while the Pro 5500M has no recorded predecessor or successor. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two shared benchmark tests exist in the database: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The Radeon Pro 5500M wins both, and by a wide margin.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro 5500M scores 31,088, while the 660M scores 12,876. The delta is 58.6% in favor of the Pro 5500M. This result is consistent with the hardware disparity: the Pro 5500M has four times the shading units and nearly 3.1 times the FP32 throughput. The 660M's newer RDNA 2.0 architecture and ray tracing cores do not close the gap in this compute-oriented workload.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro 5500M again dominates with 35,134 versus 14,748 for the 660M. The delta here is 58% in favor of the Pro 5500M. Vulkan is often more sensitive to driver optimization and architecture efficiency, but the raw shader advantage of the Pro 5500M remains the decisive factor. The 660M's 1900 MHz boost clock cannot overcome the Pro 5500M's 1,536 shading units.

The database also includes additional benchmark data for the Pro 5500M that has no counterpart for the 660M. In Passmark tests, the Pro 5500M scores 6,732 in G3D, 3,240 in GPU Compute, 648 in G2D, 96 in DirectX 9, 42 in DirectX 11, 36 in DirectX 10, and 29 in DirectX 12. It also has a Geekbench Metal score of 38,235. These results are not directly comparable to the 660M, but they show the Pro 5500M's consistent performance across a range of legacy and modern APIs.

The head-to-head record is clear: the Pro 5500M wins 2 tests, the 660M wins 0. Yet the average benchmark score tells a different story. The 660M averages 13,812, which is higher than the Pro 5500M's 11,528. This is because the 660M's average is based on only two tests, both of which are Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, while the Pro 5500M's average includes several lower Passmark scores that drag its mean down.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The 660M uses a 6 nm process; the Pro 5500M uses 7 nm. Transistor count is 13,100 million versus 6,400 million. Die size is 208 mm² versus 158 mm². Transistor density is 63.0M per mm² versus 40.5M per mm².

Clock speeds: the 660M has a base of 1500 MHz and a boost of 1900 MHz. The Pro 5500M has a base of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1450 MHz. The 660M's memory is system shared, while the Pro 5500M has 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Shading units: 384 versus 1,536. TMUs: 24 versus 96. ROPs: 16 versus 32. Ray tracing cores: 6 versus none. FP32: 1,459.2 GFLOPS versus 4.454 TFLOPS. FP16: 2.918 TFLOPS versus 8.909 TFLOPS. Pixel rate: 30.40 GPixel/s versus 46.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 45.60 GTexel/s versus 139.2 GTexel/s.

TDP: 40 W versus 85 W. The 660M is an IGP with no slot width specified; the Pro 5500M's slot width is null. Both have no power connectors. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8. DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1). OpenGL and Vulkan are identical at 4.6 and 1.4, respectively.

Release dates: January 3, 2022 for the 660M, November 12, 2019 for the Pro 5500M. The 660M has a predecessor (Vega II IGP) and successor (Navi III IGP); the Pro 5500M has neither. Both are end-of-life. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The data presents a split decision. In raw compute benchmarks, the Radeon Pro 5500M is the clear winner. It beats the 660M by 58.6% in OpenCL and 58% in Vulkan. Its 4.454 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory, and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth give it a massive advantage in any workload that stresses shader throughput or memory access.

The 660M, however, has the higher average benchmark score at 13,812 versus 11,528. This is largely a statistical artifact of the limited test set, but it does reflect that the 660M's two recorded scores are both respectable. The 660M also has a newer architecture (RDNA 2.0), a smaller process node (6 nm), and hardware ray tracing support. Its 40 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient on paper, drawing less than half the power of the Pro 5500M.

For gaming and general 3D rendering, the Pro 5500M's shader count and memory bandwidth make it the stronger choice. The 660M's ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support suggest it is better positioned for modern features, but its low shader count limits its ability to exploit them at high settings.

The 660M's system-shared memory is a double-edged sword. It eliminates the cost and complexity of dedicated VRAM, but it also means performance depends heavily on the host system's memory speed and capacity. The Pro 5500M's 8 GB of GDDR6 is fixed and predictable.

Neither GPU is currently in production, and both are end-of-life. The Pro 5500M is a discrete mobile GPU from 2019, while the 660M is an integrated solution from 2022. The choice between them depends entirely on the workload and the system in which they are installed.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 5500M wins in compute-heavy tasks. Its OpenCL score of 31,088 and Vulkan score of 35,134 are both more than double the 660M's corresponding scores. The 4.454 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 139.2 GTexel/s texture rate make it well-suited for rendering, video encoding, and scientific compute workloads that can utilize its 1,536 shading units. The 192.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is also a critical advantage for large datasets that exceed the bandwidth of system shared memory.

The 660M wins in efficiency and feature support. Its 40 W TDP is less than half the Pro 5500M's 85 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power draw is constrained. Its 6 nm process and higher transistor density (63.0M per mm² versus 40.5M per mm²) indicate a more modern design. The 6 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support give it access to ray-traced effects, which the Pro 5500M cannot handle at all. Its higher boost clock of 1900 MHz also suggests better performance in lightly-threaded workloads that respond to clock speed rather than core count.

The 660M's average benchmark score of 13,812 places it at the 55th percentile, slightly above the Pro 5500M's 51st percentile. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (13,821, a 0.1% gap) and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT (13,745, a 0.5% gap in favor of the 660M). The Pro 5500M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K20c (11,479, a 0.4% gap) and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11,627, a 0.8% gap in favor of the Pro 5500M).

In short, the Pro 5500M is the performance pick for demanding graphics and compute tasks. The 660M is the efficiency pick for modern features and low power draw. The database's head-to-head benchmarks record two wins for the Pro 5500M and none for the 660M, but the average scores tell a more nuanced story. The right choice depends on whether the user prioritizes raw throughput or architectural modernity.