AMD Radeon Pro 5500M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 and AMD Radeon Pro 5500M occupy the same performance tier in the aggregate data, but their individual benchmark profiles tell very different stories. The GTX 1660 averages 11680 across all tests versus 11528 for the Pro 5500M, a 1.3% gap in favor of NVIDIA. That margin is nearly negligible in real-world terms, yet the head-to-head results are anything but close: the GTX 1660 wins all nine direct comparisons, often by massive margins. The Pro 5500M’s inclusion in the same tier is largely a product of its strong showing in specific compute workloads, not its DirectX or OpenCL results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided wins for the GTX 1660 come in the Passmark API tests, where NVIDIA’s lead is consistently over 50%. In Passmark DirectX 11, the GTX 1660 scores 79 against the Pro 5500M’s 42, a 88.1% advantage. Passmark DirectX 9 shows a similar story at 84.4% (177 vs 96), and DirectX 10 sits at 69.4% (61 vs 36). The DirectX 12 test narrows the gap slightly to 69% (49 vs 29), but NVIDIA still holds a commanding edge. These results indicate that for legacy and current DirectX titles alike, the GTX 1660 delivers substantially higher frame rates.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where the GTX 1660 scores 1065, is not run on the Pro 5500M in this data set, so no direct comparison exists there. However, the Passmark G3D score of 11646 for the GTX 1660 versus 6732 for the Pro 5500M (a 73% delta) reinforces that NVIDIA’s card is far faster in overall 3D rendering tasks. The Geekbench Vulkan test also favors NVIDIA heavily, with 50137 versus 35134, a 42.7% lead. OpenCL is slightly closer at 53.9% (47850 vs 31088), but the direction is unchanged.

The only test where the Pro 5500M closes the gap is Geekbench Metal, which the GTX 1660 does not run — the AMD card scores 38235 there. That is a niche result for Apple ecosystem workloads. In Passmark G2D, the GTX 1660 wins but by a smaller 19.8% margin (776 vs 648), suggesting the Pro 5500M is less disadvantaged in 2D desktop tasks. Passmark GPU Compute shows a 53.2% win for NVIDIA (4963 vs 3240). The data is unambiguous: in every benchmark both cards share, the GTX 1660 wins outright, with deltas ranging from 19.8% to 88.1%.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 has an average benchmark score of 11680, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M averages 11528. That puts the GTX 1660 1.3% ahead, per the nearestRivals data.

Q: How do the two compare in DirectX 12 performance?

A: In the Passmark DirectX 12 test, the GTX 1660 scores 49 versus the Pro 5500M’s 29, a 69% advantage for NVIDIA. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), but the GTX 1660 delivers far higher performance in this API.

Q: Is the Pro 5500M competitive in any benchmark?

A: The Pro 5500M only wins in Geekbench Metal, scoring 38235. The GTX 1660 does not have a Metal score in this data. In every shared test — OpenCL, Vulkan, and all Passmark variants — the GTX 1660 wins by at least 19.8%.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 1660 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 192.1 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 5500M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. Bandwidth is nearly identical, but the Pro 5500M has more capacity while the GTX 1660 has a wider bus.

Q: How do their compute capabilities compare?

A: In Passmark GPU Compute, the GTX 1660 scores 4963 against the Pro 5500M’s 3240, a 53.2% lead. The GTX 1660 also has higher theoretical FP32 throughput at 5.027 TFLOPS versus 4.454 TFLOPS for AMD.

Q: Which card is more efficient on paper?

A: The Pro 5500M has a lower TDP of 85 W versus 120 W for the GTX 1660. The GTX 1660 requires a 300 W suggested PSU and a single 8-pin power connector, while the Pro 5500M uses no power connectors and is portable-device dependent.

The Verdict

The data supports one clear conclusion: the GTX 1660 is the faster GPU in nearly every measurable way. It wins all nine head-to-head benchmarks, with margins from 19.8% in Passmark G2D to 88.1% in Passmark DirectX 11. The 1.3% aggregate score difference is misleading because it is pulled down by the Pro 5500M’s single Metal win, which has no counterpart on the NVIDIA side. For any user running DirectX, Vulkan, or OpenCL workloads, the GTX 1660 is the stronger choice by a wide margin.

The Pro 5500M’s appeal is not raw speed but fit. It is a mobile GPU with an 85 W TDP, no power connectors, and 8 GB of GDDR6 memory. It targets Apple Mac systems, as evidenced by its Geekbench Metal score and "Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile)" generation tag. The GTX 1660 is a desktop card with a 120 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, and a 229 mm length. The decision comes down to platform: if you need a drop-in desktop card for gaming or general compute, the GTX 1660 wins outright. If you are constrained to a Mac or a slim mobile chassis, the Pro 5500M is the only option that fits, and its 8 GB memory capacity is a practical advantage for larger datasets.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 | AMD Radeon Pro 5500M |

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

| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |

| Die Size | 284 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistors | 6,600 million | 6,400 million |

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

| Base Clock | 1530 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1785 MHz | 1450 MHz |

| Memory Size | 6 GB GDDR5 | 8 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.1 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1408 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 88 | 96 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 85.68 GPixel/s | 46.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 157.1 GTexel/s | 139.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.027 TFLOPS | 4.454 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 | N/A (mobile) |

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The GTX 1660 is built on NVIDIA’s Turing architecture using the TU116 chip, produced on TSMC’s 12 nm process. The Pro 5500M uses AMD’s RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 14 chip, on TSMC’s 7 nm process. The 7 nm node gives AMD a density advantage of 40.5M transistors per mm² versus 23.2M for NVIDIA, but the GTX 1660 has a larger die (284 mm² vs 158 mm²) and slightly more transistors (6,600 million vs 6,400 million).

Clock speeds favor NVIDIA: the GTX 1660 runs at 1530 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost, while the Pro 5500M sits at 1000 MHz base and 1450 MHz boost. AMD compensates with more shading units (1536 vs 1408) and TMUs (96 vs 88), but NVIDIA has more ROPs (48 vs 32). The GTX 1660’s higher clocks and ROP count drive its superior pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s versus 46.40 GPixel/s. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The GTX 1660 uses GDDR5 memory, while the Pro 5500M uses GDDR6, though bandwidth is nearly identical at 192.1 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1660 is the clear winner for gaming and general-purpose GPU compute on desktop. Its Passmark DirectX 11 and DirectX 9 scores are 88.1% and 84.4% higher, respectively, which translates directly to better performance in the vast majority of existing games. The 73% lead in Passmark G3D and 53.2% lead in GPU Compute make it the stronger choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and OpenCL-based workloads. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and 192-bit memory bus are better suited to high-bandwidth desktop tasks, and its 120 W TDP is manageable with a 300 W recommended PSU.

The Pro 5500M wins only in the Apple ecosystem. Its Geekbench Metal score of 38235 is the sole benchmark where it outshines the GTX 1660, and that test is absent from NVIDIA’s results. The 8 GB GDDR6 memory gives it more capacity for large textures or datasets, and its 85 W TDP with no power connectors makes it viable for thin laptops. The 7 nm process and smaller die (158 mm²) indicate a more power-efficient design. If you require a GPU for a Mac or a portable workstation, the Pro 5500M is the only one of the two that fits. For any other use case — desktop gaming, DX12 titles, Vulkan apps, or OpenCL compute — the GTX 1660 is the faster card by a substantial margin.