AMD Radeon 660M vs AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains two direct head-to-head comparisons between the AMD Radeon 660M and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT, both in Geekbench workloads. The results are lopsided. The RX 6500 XT wins both tests with decisive margins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6500 XT scores 48,289 against the 660M's 12,876. That is a delta of 73.3% in favor of the discrete card. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6500 XT scores 54,724 against the 660M's 14,748, a 73.1% advantage. These are not marginal wins; the RX 6500 XT more than triples the 660M's output in both APIs. The 660M's Vulkan score of 14,748 is nonetheless higher than its own OpenCL score of 12,876, suggesting the integrated part scales better with the lower-level API, but the gap to the discrete card remains enormous.

Looking at the broader database context, the 660M's average benchmark score sits at 13,812, placing it in the 55th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile at 13,821 (0.1% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 570X at 13,871 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT at 13,745 (0.5% lower). The 660M is essentially trading punches with these parts, all within a 1.5% band. The RX 6500 XT, by contrast, has an average score of 11,842, which places it in the 51st percentile. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 at 11,960 (1.0% higher), the GTX 960A at 11,998 (1.3% higher), and the GTX 1660 at 11,680 (1.4% lower). Despite the lower average, the RX 6500 XT's peak scores are far higher, which is typical of a part with more variance across workloads.

The head-to-head data only includes two tests, and the RX 6500 XT wins both. The wins tally is 2 for the RX 6500 XT and 0 for the 660M. This is a clean sweep in the recorded metrics, but the picture is more nuanced when you consider the 660M's higher average benchmark score and its percentile ranking. The 660M averages 13,812 across its recorded tests, while the RX 6500 XT averages 11,842. That means the 660M actually holds a 16.6% higher average score in the database, despite losing both head-to-head matchups. This discrepancy suggests the two parts are optimized for different workload profiles. The RX 6500 XT spikes in compute-heavy Geekbench tests, while the 660M may be more consistent across a wider range of tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT wins both recorded head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 48,289 versus 12,876 for the 660M, a 73.3% delta. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 54,724 versus 14,748, a 73.1% delta.

Q: Does the 660M have a higher average benchmark score than the RX 6500 XT?

A: Yes. The 660M's average benchmark score is 13,812, while the RX 6500 XT's is 11,842. The 660M sits in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 6500 XT sits in the 51st percentile.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the 660M in the database?

A: The 660M's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile at 13,821 (0.1% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 570X at 13,871 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT at 13,745 (0.5% lower). All four are within a 1.5% band.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the RX 6500 XT in the database?

A: The RX 6500 XT's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 at 11,960 (1.0% higher), the GTX 960A at 11,998 (1.3% higher), and the GTX 1660 at 11,680 (1.4% lower). The RX 7800 XT is also close at 11,627 (1.9% lower).

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The 660M has a transistor density of 63.0 million per square millimeter, while the RX 6500 XT has 50.5 million per square millimeter. The 660M packs more transistors into each square millimeter of die area.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 6500 XT has a boost clock of 2815 MHz, while the 660M has a boost clock of 1900 MHz. The RX 6500 XT also has a higher base clock: 2310 MHz versus 1500 MHz.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same RDNA 2.0 architecture and are fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process. The similarities end there. The 660M uses the Rembrandt chip, which is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) designed for mobile platforms. It is part of the Navi II IGP generation. The RX 6500 XT uses the Navi 24 chip, a discrete part in the Radeon RX 6000 series, belonging to the Navi II (RX 6000) generation.

The 660M integrates 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 63.0 million per square millimeter. The RX 6500 XT contains 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, with a density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The 660M has a larger die and more transistors, but it shares memory with the system, which limits its effective bandwidth. The RX 6500 XT has dedicated GDDR6 memory, which we will detail in the specification differences.

In terms of compute resources, the 660M has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. It also has 6 ray tracing cores. The RX 6500 XT has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with 16 ray tracing cores. The RX 6500 XT has more than double the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, and nearly triple the ray tracing cores. This explains the large gap in raw throughput metrics.

The 660M's pixel rate is 30.40 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 45.60 GTexel/s. The RX 6500 XT's pixel rate is 90.08 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 180.2 GTexel/s. The RX 6500 XT is roughly three times faster in pixel fillrate and nearly four times faster in texture fillrate. The FP32 performance tells a similar story: the 660M delivers 1,459.2 GFLOPS, while the RX 6500 XT delivers 5.765 TFLOPS. The FP16 figures are 2.918 TFLOPS for the 660M and 11.53 TFLOPS for the RX 6500 XT, both at a 2:1 ratio.

The 660M is an IGP with no power connectors and a 40 W TDP. The RX 6500 XT is a dual-slot card with a 107 W TDP and a single 6-pin power connector. The 660M's bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RX 6500 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x4. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 660M's display outputs are portable device dependent, while the RX 6500 XT offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The 660M has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1900 MHz, while the RX 6500 XT has a base clock of 2310 MHz, a boost clock of 2815 MHz, and a game clock of 2610 MHz. The RX 6500 XT also has a dedicated memory clock of 2248 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed, whereas the 660M's memory clock is listed as "System Shared."

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The 660M uses system shared memory with no dedicated size, type, bus width, or bandwidth. The RX 6500 XT has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 143.9 GB/s of bandwidth. The 660M's bandwidth is system dependent, which means it varies based on the host platform's memory configuration.

The shading unit count is 384 for the 660M versus 1024 for the RX 6500 XT. TMUs are 24 versus 64, and ROPs are 16 versus 32. Ray tracing cores are 6 versus 16. The 660M has no tensor cores, and neither does the RX 6500 XT.

The power profile differs significantly. The 660M has a 40 W TDP and no power connectors. The RX 6500 XT has a 107 W TDP, a 1x 6-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The slot width is IGP for the 660M and dual-slot for the RX 6500 XT.

The 660M has a larger die at 208 mm² versus 107 mm² for the RX 6500 XT. It also has more transistors at 13,100 million versus 5,400 million. The transistor density favors the 660M at 63.0M per mm² versus 50.5M per mm². The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 660M and PCIe 4.0 x4 for the RX 6500 XT. Both are end-of-life products, with the 660M releasing on 2022-01-03 and the RX 6500 XT on 2022-01-18. The RX 6500 XT has a launch MSRP of 199 USD.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for raw compute performance. The RX 6500 XT dominates in every head-to-head benchmark, with deltas of 73.3% in OpenCL and 73.1% in Vulkan. It has more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray tracing cores, plus higher clocks and dedicated GDDR6 memory with 143.9 GB/s bandwidth. For any workload that stresses raw shader throughput or memory bandwidth, the RX 6500 XT is the obvious choice.

The 660M, however, holds a higher average benchmark score of 13,812 versus 11,842, and it sits in a higher percentile (55th versus 51st). Its nearest rivals include the RX 7900 XT, which is a flagship discrete card, yet the 660M trades within 0.5% of it in the database. This suggests the 660M is remarkably consistent across a broad set of tests, even if it loses the two specific head-to-head matchups.

The 660M's advantage is efficiency and integration. It has a 40 W TDP, no power connectors, and is an IGP, meaning it requires no separate card slot. It also has a higher transistor density (63.0M per mm²) and a larger die (208 mm²), which points to a more complex integrated design. For a portable device where power draw and physical space are constraints, the 660M is the only viable option.

The RX 6500 XT, by contrast, is a discrete dual-slot card with a 107 W TDP and a 6-pin connector. It demands a 300 W PSU. It wins on raw performance but loses on integration and efficiency. The verdict depends on the use case. If the system must be compact and power-efficient, the 660M is the pick. If the system can accommodate a discrete card and needs maximum compute throughput, the RX 6500 XT wins.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500 XT wins in raw compute benchmarks. It scores 48,289 in OpenCL and 54,724 in Vulkan, both more than three times the 660M's scores. It also wins on every throughput metric: pixel rate (90.08 GPixel/s versus 30.40 GPixel/s), texture rate (180.2 GTexel/s versus 45.60 GTexel/s), and FP32 (5.765 TFLOPS versus 1,459.2 GFLOPS). For gaming at higher resolutions or settings, or for compute workloads that scale with shader count, the RX 6500 XT is the winner.

The 660M wins in efficiency and integration. It has a 40 W TDP versus 107 W, no power connectors, and an IGP slot width. It also has a higher transistor density (63.0M per mm²) and a larger die (208 mm²), which indicates a more advanced integrated design. Its average benchmark score of 13,812 is higher than the RX 6500 XT's 11,842, and it sits in the 55th percentile versus the 51st. This suggests the 660M is more consistent across workloads, even if it loses the specific head-to-head tests.

The 660M wins in memory flexibility, as it uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. This means it can leverage the host system's memory pool, which could be larger than 4 GB. The RX 6500 XT is limited to 4 GB of GDDR6, which may be a constraint in memory-heavy applications.

The RX 6500 XT wins in every specification that matters for peak performance: shading units (1024 versus 384), TMUs (64 versus 24), ROPs (32 versus 16), ray tracing cores (16 versus 6), and clock speeds (boost 2815 MHz versus 1900 MHz). It also has dedicated memory with 143.9 GB/s bandwidth, which is a significant advantage over system-dependent memory.

In summary, the RX 6500 XT wins for discrete performance and memory bandwidth. The 660M wins for integration, efficiency, and average consistency. The recorded data shows a 2-0 sweep for the RX 6500 XT in direct comparisons, but the 660M's higher average score and percentile ranking indicate it is a more balanced part across the full database.