AMD Radeon 660M vs AMD Radeon Pro W5500 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes two common benchmark tests for these GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is decisively ahead of the AMD Radeon 660M. The largest margin appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Pro W5500 scores 45,615 against 12,876 for the 660M, a delta of 254.3%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro W5500 posts 42,021 versus 14,748, a 184.9% advantage. These are substantial gaps, indicating that the discrete workstation card outperforms the integrated mobile part by a wide margin in compute-oriented workloads under both APIs.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the Pro W5500 sits at 15,679, while the 660M averages 13,812. The Pro W5500 is about 13.5% higher in average score. This aligns with the head-to-head results, though the average score gap is smaller than the individual Geekbench deltas. The reason is that the Pro W5500 has a broader set of benchmark results recorded, including several Passmark tests where scores are much lower in absolute terms, pulling its average down relative to its strong Geekbench numbers.

The percentile rankings against all GPUs are close: the Pro W5500 is in the 58th percentile, while the 660M is in the 55th percentile. Despite the massive head-to-head deltas, both parts land near each other in the overall distribution. This suggests that the 660M, while far behind in these specific compute tests, still holds its own against a wide field of other GPUs in the database, likely due to its efficiency and integrated nature rather than raw throughput.

For the Pro W5500, the nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti with an average score of 15,548 and a delta of 0.8%, meaning the Pro W5500 is just 0.8% ahead of that card. It is also 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M380 (15,521). On the other side, the AMD Radeon RX 7700 (15,852) is 1.1% ahead of the Pro W5500, and the AMD Radeon R9 370X (15,862) leads by 1.2%. These are tight margins, placing the Pro W5500 in a narrow performance band.

For the 660M, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile with an average score of 13,821, a delta of -0.1%, meaning the 660M is essentially tied with that mobile workstation GPU. The AMD Radeon RX 570X (13,871) is 0.4% ahead, while the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT (13,745) is 0.5% behind the 660M. The NVIDIA Tesla K10 (14,029) leads by 1.5%. These results indicate that the 660M, despite its low power envelope and integrated design, performs in the same neighborhood as several dedicated graphics cards in the database.

The wins tally is 2 for the Pro W5500 and 0 for the 660M in the head-to-head comparisons. No benchmark in the recorded set favors the 660M. The Pro W5500 wins both Geekbench tests, and the deltas are large enough that no other test would likely flip the overall picture, though the database has only these two common tests.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD graphics architecture. The Pro W5500 uses RDNA 1.0 on the Navi 14 chip, while the 660M uses RDNA 2.0 on the Rembrandt chip. This is a generational leap in microarchitecture, with RDNA 2.0 bringing feature updates over the older design. The process nodes also differ: the Pro W5500 is built on TSMC's 7 nm process, while the 660M uses a 6 nm process from the same foundry. The smaller node for the 660M allows for higher transistor density, measured at 63.0 million transistors per square millimeter versus 40.5 million for the Pro W5500.

Transistor counts are notably different. The Pro W5500 has 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die. The 660M, being an integrated part within a larger mobile processor, has 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die. The larger die for the 660M includes the CPU cores and other system components, not just the GPU, which explains the higher transistor count despite the lower GPU performance.

The Pro W5500 has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The 660M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Pro W5500 has roughly 3.7 times the shading units and TMUs, and double the ROPs. This explains much of the performance difference in compute and pixel throughput tests. The Pro W5500 also has no ray tracing cores listed, while the 660M includes 6 ray tracing cores. This is a key architectural distinction: the RDNA 2.0 part supports ray tracing hardware, whereas the RDNA 1.0 part does not.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The Pro W5500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 660M uses System Shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as System Dependent. This means the 660M relies on the host system's memory, and its performance is tied to the platform it is installed in. The Pro W5500's dedicated memory provides consistent bandwidth regardless of system configuration.

Clock speeds show a mixed picture. The Pro W5500 has a base clock of 1744 MHz and a boost clock of 1855 MHz. The 660M has a lower base clock of 1500 MHz but a higher boost clock of 1900 MHz. The memory clock for the Pro W5500 is 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective data rate. The 660M has no dedicated memory clock since it uses system memory.

DirectX support differs. The Pro W5500 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 660M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). This reflects the newer feature set in RDNA 2.0. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The 660M's ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support give it a feature advantage in modern games and applications that use ray tracing, even though its raw compute performance is much lower.

Pixel and texture rates follow the hardware counts. The Pro W5500 achieves 59.36 GPixel/s and 163.2 GTexel/s, while the 660M achieves 30.40 GPixel/s and 45.60 GTexel/s. The Pro W5500 is roughly twice as fast in pixel throughput and about 3.6 times as fast in texture throughput. FP32 compute is 5.224 TFLOPS for the Pro W5500 versus 1,459.2 GFLOPS (or about 1.46 TFLOPS) for the 660M. FP16 performance is 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Pro W5500 versus 2.918 TFLOPS (2:1) for the 660M.

Power and physical design differ sharply. The Pro W5500 has a 125 W TDP, is a single-slot card, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W power supply. The 660M has a 40 W TDP, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), has no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The Pro W5500 is 241 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the 660M has no recorded dimensions, as it is integrated into a processor package. The Pro W5500 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the 660M's display outputs are listed as Portable Device Dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 wins clearly in raw compute performance. Its FP32 throughput of 5.224 TFLOPS is over three times that of the 660M, and its texture rate of 163.2 GTexel/s is more than triple. For any workload that relies on shading, texturing, or general compute, the Pro W5500 is the stronger part. This is reflected in the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores, where it leads by 254.3% and 184.9% respectively. Workloads such as 3D rendering, video encoding, scientific simulation, and GPU-accelerated compute in professional applications would favor the Pro W5500.

The Pro W5500 also wins on dedicated memory bandwidth. With 8 GB of GDDR6 at 224.0 GB/s, it provides predictable, high-bandwidth access for large datasets. The 660M's system-shared memory is dependent on the host platform, meaning its effective bandwidth varies with memory type, channel count, and CPU load. In memory-intensive tasks, the Pro W5500 has a significant advantage.

The AMD Radeon 660M wins on efficiency and integration. Its 40 W TDP is less than a third of the Pro W5500's 125 W TDP. For laptops and compact systems where power is limited, the 660M is the only viable option of the two. It also includes 6 ray tracing cores, giving it hardware support for ray-traced effects that the Pro W5500 cannot accelerate. DirectX 12 Ultimate support on the 660M means it can run the latest DirectX 12_2 features in games and applications that require them, whereas the Pro W5500 is limited to DirectX 12_1.

For gaming on the go, the 660M is the more relevant part, despite its lower scores. Its integrated nature means no extra power connectors, no additional slot space, and no external display cabling required. The Pro W5500, by contrast, needs a power connector, a single slot, and is a discrete card meant for desktop workstations. The 660M's boost clock of 1900 MHz is also higher than the Pro W5500's 1855 MHz, though this does not compensate for the large difference in shading units.

The 660M also benefits from being part of a newer generation with a smaller process node. The 6 nm process gives it a transistor density of 63.0M per square millimeter, higher than the Pro W5500's 40.5M. This does not translate into higher performance, but it does support the efficiency advantage. The 660M's predecessor is listed as Vega II IGP, and its successor is Navi III IGP, indicating it sits in a product line of integrated graphics, not discrete workstation cards.

For professional workstation use, the Pro W5500 is the clear choice. It has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6, four DisplayPort outputs, and a 300 W PSU recommendation. It is marked as end-of-life, as is the 660M, but its feature set is aimed at multi-display professional environments. The 660M, with portable-device-dependent outputs, is geared toward laptops and mobile systems.

In summary, the Pro W5500 wins on compute, memory bandwidth, and professional feature support. The 660M wins on power efficiency, ray tracing capability, modern API support, and integration convenience. The choice depends on whether the workload demands raw throughput or low-power mobile operation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 scores 45,615 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon 660M scores 12,876. The Pro W5500 leads by 254.3%.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 660M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the 660M includes 6 ray tracing cores. The Pro W5500 has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Pro W5500 has a 125 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector with a suggested 300 W PSU. The 660M has a 40 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU, as it is an integrated part.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Pro W5500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 660M uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Pro W5500 has an average benchmark score of 15,679, while the 660M has an average score of 13,812. The Pro W5500 is higher by about 13.5%.

Q: What DirectX versions do the two GPUs support?

A: The Pro W5500 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 660M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro W5500 | AMD Radeon 660M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Chip | Navi 14 | Rembrandt |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 13,100 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 208 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 63.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1744 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1855 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 8 GB GDDR6 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 1408 | 384 |

| TMUs | 88 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 59.36 GPixel/s | 30.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 163.2 GTexel/s | 45.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 5.224 TFLOPS | 1,459.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.918 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 125 W | 40 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2020-02-09 | 2022-01-03 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Vega II IGP |

| Successor | None | Navi III IGP |

| Launch MSRP | 399 USD | None |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |