AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 across all nine shared benchmark tests. There is no test in the database where the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M takes the lead. The largest margin appears in the Passmark DirectX 9 test, where the GTX 1660 scores 177 against the Radeon Pro 5300M's 80, a 121.3% advantage. Similarly, the Passmark DirectX 11 test shows the GTX 1660 at 79 versus 37, a 113.5% lead. These legacy API results indicate that the GTX 1660 holds a commanding edge in older workloads, which can matter for compatibility with older game engines or professional applications that rely on those interfaces.

The gap narrows somewhat in more modern tests, but it remains substantial. In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 1660 posts 50137 against 27912, a 79.6% difference. The Passmark DirectX 12 test shows a 96% advantage (49 versus 25), and the Passmark G3D score, which is a general indicator of 3D rendering performance, has the GTX 1660 at 11646 versus 5918, a 96.8% lead. Compute workloads follow the same pattern: Passmark GPU Compute scores 4963 for the GTX 1660 versus 2658 for the Radeon Pro 5300M, an 86.7% difference.

The smallest recorded margin in the head-to-head tests is in Passmark G2D, where the GTX 1660 leads by 33.3% (776 versus 582). That still represents a clear win, but it shows that 2D desktop and compositing tasks are relatively closer between the two. The Geekbench OpenCL result also shows a large gap: 47850 versus 29252, a 63.6% lead. Overall, the data indicates that the GTX 1660 outperforms the Radeon Pro 5300M by a wide margin in every measurable category, with deltas ranging from roughly one-third to over double the score.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 uses the TU116 chip based on the Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip based on RDNA 1.0, built on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: AMD's 7 nm node allows for a much smaller die. The GTX 1660 has a die size of 284 mm², while the Radeon Pro 5300M's die is 158 mm². Despite the smaller die, the transistor counts are close: the GTX 1660 has 6,600 million transistors, and the Radeon Pro 5300M has 6,400 million. This results in a much higher transistor density for the AMD part: 40.5M / mm² versus 23.2M / mm².

Core configuration also differs. The GTX 1660 has 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 render output units (ROPs). The Radeon Pro 5300M has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as those are absent from both specifications. The clock speeds show a different approach: the GTX 1660 runs with a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz, while the Radeon Pro 5300M operates at a base of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1250 MHz. That clock advantage contributes to the GTX 1660's higher fill rates: it achieves 85.68 GPixel/s pixel rate and 157.1 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 40.00 GPixel/s and 100.0 GTexel/s for the AMD part. The FP32 compute throughput is 5.027 TFLOPS for the GTX 1660 and 3.200 TFLOPS for the Radeon Pro 5300M. FP16 performance scales at a 2:1 ratio for both, yielding 10.05 TFLOPS and 6.400 TFLOPS respectively.

Memory architecture is another differentiator. The GTX 1660 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 192.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5300M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 192.0 GB/s. The bandwidth is nearly identical, but the GTX 1660 has 50% more memory capacity and a wider bus. The memory clock is reported differently: the GTX 1660 runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the Radeon Pro 5300M runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The newer GDDR6 memory on the AMD part compensates for the narrower bus, but the practical bandwidth is effectively the same. The bus interface also differs: the GTX 1660 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon Pro 5300M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. That said, the PCIe bandwidth is unlikely to be the deciding factor given the performance gap shown in benchmarks.

Power and physical characteristics diverge sharply. The GTX 1660 has a TDP of 120 W, requires a 1x 8-pin power connector, and is a dual-slot card with a 300 W suggested PSU. It measures 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width. The Radeon Pro 5300M has a TDP of 85 W and no power connectors, as it is designed for portable devices. Its dimensions are not listed, and its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent." This reflects the intended use case: the GTX 1660 is a standalone desktop card, while the Radeon Pro 5300M is a mobile GPU for laptops, likely soldered to the motherboard.

Where Each One Wins

Given the head-to-head data, the GTX 1660 wins in every category where both were tested. That makes the use-case split fairly one-sided. The GTX 1660 is the stronger choice for any workload that relies on DirectX 9, 10, 11, or 12 performance, as it leads by margins ranging from 69.4% to 121.3% in those Passmark tests. Its Vulkan and OpenCL results are also far ahead, so compute-heavy applications like rendering, video encoding, or GPU-accelerated analytics would favor the GTX 1660. The Passmark G3D score of 11646 versus 5918 reinforces that the GTX 1660 is the better performer for general 3D rendering.

The Radeon Pro 5300M does not win any benchmark in the database. However, its strengths lie in its form factor and power profile, not raw performance. With an 85 W TDP and no power connectors, it is designed for thin-and-light laptops where a 120 W dual-slot card with an 8-pin connector would not fit. The Radeon Pro 5300M also supports PCIe 4.0, which is a newer standard, though the GTX 1660's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface still offers more lanes. For users who need a GPU that operates within a lower power envelope and can be integrated into a portable system, the Radeon Pro 5300M has a practical advantage that benchmarks do not capture. But for pure performance, the data shows no scenario where the Radeon Pro 5300M comes out ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 has an average benchmark score of 11680, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M averages 10013. The GTX 1660 also sits at the 51st percentile among all GPUs, compared to the 48th percentile for the Radeon Pro 5300M.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1660's closest rival in the database is the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT, which scores 11842 and is 1.4% faster. It is also 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11627), 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11528), and 1.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla K20c (11479).

Q: What about the Radeon Pro 5300M's nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M's closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, which scores 10043 and is 0.3% faster. It is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9959), 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10070), and 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9846).

Q: Is the memory bandwidth similar between the two?

A: Yes, the bandwidth is nearly identical. The GTX 1660 has 192.1 GB/s, and the Radeon Pro 5300M has 192.0 GB/s. The difference is negligible.

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The GTX 1660 has 6 GB of GDDR5, while the Radeon Pro 5300M has 4 GB of GDDR6. The GTX 1660 offers 50% more capacity.

Q: Do either of these GPUs support ray tracing?

A: No. Neither the GTX 1660 nor the Radeon Pro 5300M has ray tracing cores. Both rely on traditional shading units.

Specification Differences

The table below lists the key specifications where the two GPUs differ, based solely on the recorded data.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 | AMD Radeon Pro 5300M |

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

| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |

| Die Size | 284 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.2M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1530 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1785 MHz | 1250 MHz |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Shading Units | 1408 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 88 | 80 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 85.68 GPixel/s | 40.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 157.1 GTexel/s | 100.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 5.027 TFLOPS | 3.200 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 10.05 TFLOPS | 6.400 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 120 W | 85 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 229 mm x 111 mm x 35 mm | Not listed |

| Launch MSRP | 219 USD | Not listed |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M in every benchmark test recorded. If your priority is raw performance in DirectX, Vulkan, OpenCL, or general 3D rendering, the GTX 1660 is the clear choice. It offers double the Passmark G3D score, a 79.6% lead in Vulkan, and a 63.6% lead in OpenCL. Its higher core counts, higher clocks, and larger memory capacity all contribute to that result. The GTX 1660 also has more memory (6 GB versus 4 GB), which can be important for texture-heavy workloads or larger datasets.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M should only be considered if the physical constraints of your system dictate it. It is a mobile GPU with an 85 W TDP, no power connectors, and no listed dimensions, designed for laptops where the GTX 1660 simply will not fit. Its 7 nm process and smaller die make it more power-efficient per square millimeter, but that efficiency does not translate into a performance win in any recorded test. The Radeon Pro 5300M's best case is matching bandwidth (192.0 GB/s versus 192.1 GB/s) and offering PCIe 4.0 support, but those features do not overcome the performance deficit.

For a desktop builder, the GTX 1660 is the only sensible pick based on the numbers. For a laptop user, the Radeon Pro 5300M exists because there is no alternative that fits the form factor, but you should expect significantly lower performance: roughly half the 3D score and about 60% of the compute throughput. The verdict is straightforward: the GTX 1660 wins on every measurable front, and the Radeon Pro 5300M wins only on portability and power draw.