AMD Radeon PRO W7500 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti occupy different corners of the GPU landscape, separated by more than a decade of architectural evolution. The recorded data shows a clear performance gulf, but the comparison is not without nuance. The W7500 is a modern workstation part built on a 6 nm process, while the GTX 660 Ti is a legacy consumer card from the Kepler era on a 28 nm node. Benchmark results indicate that the W7500 dominates in every recorded compute test, yet the GTX 660 Ti still holds relevance for older software stacks and legacy workloads. This analysis walks through the data to show where each card wins, how their architectures differ, and what the numbers mean for potential users.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins every recorded benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. Out of two tested workloads, the W7500 takes both, giving it a clean 2-0 record. The wins are not marginal; they are decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W7500 scores 58213 against the GTX 660 Ti's 15113, a delta of 285.2%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the W7500 scores 68634 against 15012, a delta of 357.2%. These are not close contests. The W7500 is faster by a wide margin in both general-purpose compute and graphics API workloads.

The GTX 660 Ti, by contrast, has no recorded wins in the head-to-head data. It does not appear in the same benchmark categories for DirectX or Passmark tests, as the database only includes Geekbench results for this card. Where the GTX 660 Ti might still win is in compatibility with older software. Its Kepler architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_0), which is a lower feature level than the W7500's DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). For users running legacy applications that predate modern API revisions, the GTX 660 Ti could be the only one of the two that works without issues. However, in raw performance, the data shows no scenario where the GTX 660 Ti comes out ahead.

The W7500 also holds a percentile advantage. It sits at the 59th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 660 Ti sits at the 57th. This is a small gap in relative standing, but it reflects the W7500's higher average benchmark score of 16415 versus 15063 for the GTX 660 Ti. The percentile data suggests that the W7500 is better positioned in the overall performance distribution, even if both cards are near the middle of the pack.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 uses RDNA 3.0, with the chip codenamed Navi 33 and a process node of 6 nm from TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti uses the Kepler architecture, with the chip GK104 and a 28 nm process node, also from TSMC. The process node difference is stark: 6 nm versus 28 nm, which explains the massive transistor density gap. The W7500 packs 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die, yielding a density of 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 660 Ti has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The W7500 is more than five times denser, enabling far more compute resources in a smaller physical area.

The W7500 features 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. It also includes 28 ray tracing cores, which the GTX 660 Ti lacks entirely. The GTX 660 Ti has 1344 shading units and 112 TMUs, but only 24 ROPs. The W7500's ROP count is nearly triple that of the GTX 660 Ti, which directly impacts pixel throughput. The W7500 achieves a pixel rate of 108.8 GPixel/s, while the GTX 660 Ti manages 27.44 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows a similar pattern: 190.4 GTexel/s for the W7500 versus 109.8 GTexel/s for the GTX 660 Ti.

Memory architecture differs as well. The W7500 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 660 Ti uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, with 144.2 GB/s. The W7500 has more capacity and higher bandwidth, despite the narrower bus, because of the faster memory technology. The GTX 660 Ti's memory clock runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the W7500's memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). This fourfold increase in effective memory speed is a key factor in the W7500's compute advantage.

The W7500 also supports newer APIs. It lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 660 Ti supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The W7500's Vulkan version is newer, and its DirectX feature level is higher. The GTX 660 Ti lacks ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and any hardware support for modern ray-traced workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the W7500 with a score of 58213, which is 285.2% higher than the GTX 660 Ti's 15113. This is a 3.85x improvement in raw compute throughput. The W7500's FP32 performance is 12.19 TFLOPS, versus 2.634 TFLOPS for the GTX 660 Ti. That is a 4.6x difference, which aligns with the OpenCL delta. The W7500's FP16 performance is 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the GTX 660 Ti has no recorded FP16 capability. For compute-heavy tasks like machine learning inference or scientific simulation, the W7500 is in a different league.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even larger gap. The W7500 scores 68634, which is 357.2% higher than the GTX 660 Ti's 15012. This is a 4.57x difference. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that scales well with raw hardware resources, and the W7500's modern architecture with more shading units, higher clocks, and faster memory pulls far ahead. The GTX 660 Ti's older Kepler design was not built for Vulkan's threading model, and the data reflects that.

The W7500's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 16415, pulling from nine benchmark entries including Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute. The GTX 660 Ti's average is 15063, but it only has two recorded benchmarks (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan). This means the averages are not directly comparable, but the head-to-head data is unambiguous: in the only shared tests, the W7500 wins by wide margins.

Specification Differences

The specification differences between the two cards are extensive. The W7500 has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz, while the GTX 660 Ti runs at 915 MHz base and 980 MHz boost. The W7500's clocks are roughly 65% higher at base and 73% higher at boost. Power consumption differs significantly: the W7500 has a TDP of 70 W, while the GTX 660 Ti draws 150 W. The W7500 requires no power connectors, while the GTX 660 Ti needs two 6-pin connectors. The suggested PSU for the W7500 is 250 W, versus 450 W for the GTX 660 Ti. The W7500 is a single-slot card, while the GTX 660 Ti is dual-slot.

Bus interface also differs. The W7500 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the GTX 660 Ti uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The W7500's bandwidth is higher per lane, but the GTX 660 Ti has more lanes. In practice, the W7500's newer standard offers more total bandwidth. Display outputs are another differentiator: the W7500 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1, while the GTX 660 Ti has 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The W7500 supports modern display standards, while the GTX 660 Ti is limited to older connections.

Physical dimensions also differ. The W7500 is 216 mm long (8.5 inches), 115 mm high (4.5 inches), and 20 mm wide (0.8 inches). The GTX 660 Ti is 241 mm long (9.5 inches), with no recorded height or width. The W7500 is shorter, thinner, and lighter, making it easier to fit in small form factor systems. The production status is Active for the W7500, while the GTX 660 Ti is End-of-life. The GTX 660 Ti was released on 2012-08-15, while the W7500 came out on 2023-08-02, a gap of 11 years.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 has 256.0 GB/s, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti has 144.2 GB/s. The W7500 is 77% faster in bandwidth.

Q: Does the GTX 660 Ti support ray tracing?

A: No. The GTX 660 Ti has no ray tracing cores, while the W7500 includes 28 RT cores.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The W7500 has a TDP of 70 W and needs no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 660 Ti has a TDP of 150 W, requires two 6-pin connectors, and a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Q: Which card has a higher Vulkan score?

A: The W7500 scores 68634 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GTX 660 Ti scores 15012. This is a 357.2% advantage for the W7500.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The W7500 is built on a 6 nm process, while the GTX 660 Ti uses a 28 nm process. The W7500's transistor density is 65.2 million per square millimeter, versus 12.0 million for the GTX 660 Ti.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The W7500 has 1792 shading units, while the GTX 660 Ti has 1344. The W7500 also has 64 ROPs versus 24 for the GTX 660 Ti.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti in every recorded benchmark, with deltas of 285.2% in OpenCL and 357.2% in Vulkan. The W7500 offers more memory, higher bandwidth, faster clocks, and a more modern architecture. It also consumes less power, requires no external connectors, and fits in a single slot. For any modern workload involving compute, graphics, or ray tracing, the W7500 is the only viable choice.

The GTX 660 Ti still has a role for users with legacy software that requires older API versions or driver behavior. Its DirectX 12 (11_0) feature level and Vulkan 1.2 support may be sufficient for older games or proprietary applications that have not been updated. However, its 2 GB memory capacity and 144.2 GB/s bandwidth are severe limitations for any current workload. The GTX 660 Ti sits at the 57th percentile among all GPUs, while the W7500 sits at the 59th, but the average benchmark score difference of 16415 versus 15063 shows the W7500 is consistently faster across a broader set of tests.

For buyers today, the W7500 is the recommended choice for professional work, content creation, or any task that leverages modern APIs. The GTX 660 Ti is an end-of-life product that should only be considered for retro compatibility or very specific legacy use cases. The recorded data leaves no ambiguity about which card delivers higher performance.