AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Comparison

# FAQ

Q: How do the average benchmark scores of the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 compare?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M has an average benchmark score of 10013, while the GTX 660 scores 9022. The AMD card sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, and the NVIDIA card is at the 45th percentile.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Metal performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M wins decisively with a score of 33626 versus the GTX 660's 4305, a delta of 681.1%. That is the largest single-test gap between the two cards.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 660 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus with 144.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M, built on a 7 nm process, has a transistor density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 660, built on 28 nm, has a density of 11.5 million per square millimeter.

Q: What API levels does each GPU support?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 660 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How does the boost clock compare between the two?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M boosts to 1250 MHz, while the GTX 660 boosts to 1032 MHz. The AMD card's base clock is 1000 MHz versus the NVIDIA card's 980 MHz.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner: the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M. In every head-to-head benchmark recorded, the AMD card takes the win. The Geekbench Metal test shows the largest margin at 681.1% ahead, while the OpenCL and Vulkan tests show 157.8% and 144.5% advantages respectively. The Radeon Pro 5300M also has a higher average benchmark score (10013 versus 9022) and a higher percentile ranking (48th versus 45th).

For users prioritizing compute performance across API workloads, the Radeon Pro 5300M is the obvious choice. Its 3.200 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the GTX 660's 1.981 TFLOPS represents a 61.5% raw throughput advantage. The AMD card also doubles the FP16 rate at 6.400 TFLOPS, while the GTX 660 has no recorded FP16 capability.

For those considering the GTX 660, the data suggests it remains a viable option only for legacy scenarios. It has a lower TDP draw of 140 W compared to the AMD card's 85 W, but this does not translate into better performance. The GTX 660 does have a wider memory bus at 192-bit versus 128-bit, yet the AMD card still achieves higher bandwidth (192.0 GB/s versus 144.2 GB/s) thanks to faster GDDR6 memory.

The verdict is straightforward: if the choice is between these two, the Radeon Pro 5300M wins on every measured benchmark. The GTX 660's only advantage is its lower transistor count (2,540 million versus 6,400 million), which is not a performance metric. For any workload represented in the database, the AMD card delivers superior results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous. Across three Geekbench tests, the Radeon Pro 5300M records wins in all of them.

In Geekbench Metal, the AMD card scores 33626 against the GTX 660's 4305. This is a 681.1% delta, by far the largest margin in the comparison. Metal performance is particularly relevant for macOS applications, and the Radeon Pro 5300M's architecture clearly excels in this API. The GTX 660's Metal support exists but yields far lower throughput.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a similar but less extreme pattern. The Radeon Pro 5300M scores 29252, while the GTX 660 manages 11347. The delta here is 157.8%. OpenCL is a cross-platform compute API, and the AMD card's higher shading unit count (1280 versus 960) and higher clock speeds contribute to this advantage.

Geekbench Vulkan results follow the same trend. The AMD card scores 27912 versus the GTX 660's 11415, a 144.5% delta. Vulkan is a modern graphics and compute API, and the Radeon Pro 5300M's support for Vulkan 1.4 (versus the GTX 660's 1.2.175) aligns with its stronger performance.

The pattern across all three tests is consistent: the Radeon Pro 5300M leads by a factor of roughly 2.4 to 7.8 times. The smallest margin is in Vulkan, where the AMD card still more than doubles the NVIDIA card's score. This suggests the AMD architecture scales better across different API implementations, not just in a single workload.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every core specification. The Radeon Pro 5300M has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 660 has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The TMU count is identical, but the AMD card leads in shading units and ROPs.

Clock speeds also differ. The AMD card runs at a 1000 MHz base and 1250 MHz boost. The GTX 660 runs at 980 MHz base and 1032 MHz boost. The AMD card's higher clocks, combined with its newer architecture, contribute to its performance lead.

Memory configuration shows a split. The Radeon Pro 5300M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 660 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, achieving 144.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card has double the capacity and higher bandwidth despite the narrower bus.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern. The AMD card reaches 40.00 GPixel/s and 100.0 GTexel/s, while the GTX 660 reaches 20.64 GPixel/s and 82.56 GTexel/s. The AMD card nearly doubles the pixel fill rate.

FP32 compute is 3.200 TFLOPS for the AMD card versus 1.981 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card. FP16 is 6.400 TFLOPS for the AMD card, with no recorded value for the GTX 660.

Power draw is a notable difference: the Radeon Pro 5300M is rated at 85 W TDP, while the GTX 660 is rated at 140 W. The AMD card delivers higher performance at lower power consumption.

The bus interface differs as well. The AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the GTX 660 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The AMD card's newer interface offers higher bandwidth per lane.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The Radeon Pro 5300M uses the Navi 14 chip based on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process by TSMC. The GTX 660 uses the GK106 chip based on Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also by TSMC.

Transistor counts reflect the process difference. The AMD chip packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip contains 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, with a density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip achieves 2.5 times the transistor count on a smaller die.

The generation gap is also evident. The Radeon Pro 5300M belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile) generation, released in November 2019. The GTX 660 belongs to the GeForce 600 generation, released in September 2012. The seven-year gap explains many of the architectural improvements.

Memory technology differs: GDDR6 for the AMD card versus GDDR5 for the NVIDIA card. The AMD card's memory runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed, while the NVIDIA card runs at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective speed.

The GTX 660 has no recorded FP16 capability, while the Radeon Pro 5300M offers FP16 at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. This makes the AMD card better suited for workloads that leverage reduced-precision arithmetic.

Display outputs also differ. The Radeon Pro 5300M is described as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating it is designed for mobile platforms. The GTX 660 offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The AMD card has no dedicated power connectors, while the GTX 660 requires a single 6-pin connector and suggests a 300 W power supply.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 5300M wins in every benchmark category recorded. In Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, it leads by margins ranging from 144.5% to 681.1%. This makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads, particularly those using modern APIs.

For mobile computing scenarios, the Radeon Pro 5300M is the stronger option. Its 85 W TDP is substantially lower than the GTX 660's 140 W, and its display outputs are designed for portable devices. The AMD card's 4 GB of GDDR6 memory provides more capacity for larger textures and datasets.

The GTX 660's strengths are more limited. It has a wider memory bus (192-bit versus 128-bit), which could theoretically benefit certain memory-access patterns, but the AMD card's higher bandwidth negates this advantage in practice. The GTX 660's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface offers more lanes than the AMD card's PCIe 4.0 x8, but the newer PCIe 4.0 standard provides higher per-lane throughput.

For users with legacy software that relies on older DirectX versions, the GTX 660 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Radeon Pro 5300M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The higher feature level of the AMD card suggests better compatibility with newer DirectX 12 features.

In terms of raw throughput, the Radeon Pro 5300M wins across the board. Its FP32 performance is 61.5% higher than the GTX 660. Its texture rate is 21.1% higher, and its pixel rate is 93.8% higher. These are not marginal differences; they represent a generational leap in capability.

The GTX 660's only recorded wins are structural rather than performance-based. It has a larger die (221 mm² versus 158 mm²) and a dual-slot form factor, but these are not advantages. The card's 2 GB memory capacity is half that of the AMD card, which could limit performance in memory-intensive applications.

For professional workloads, the Radeon Pro 5300M's RDNA 1.0 architecture and higher compute rates make it the better choice. For gaming at the settings available in 2012, the GTX 660 was competitive, but the data shows it cannot match the AMD card in any modern benchmark.

The verdict from the recorded data is unambiguous. Users should pick the Radeon Pro 5300M for any task that benefits from higher compute throughput, lower power draw, or newer API support. The GTX 660 remains a historical artifact, outperformed in every measured category.