AMD Radeon RX 550 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 wins all three head-to-head tests. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 it scores 1065 versus 127 for the AMD Radeon RX 550, a 738.6% delta. In Geekbench OpenCL it scores 47850 versus 11063 (332.5% delta), and in Geekbench Vulkan it scores 50137 versus 12270 (308.6% delta).

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1660 has an average benchmark score of 11680, placing it in the 51st percentile of all GPUs. The RX 550 has an average score of 11075, placing it in the 50th percentile. Despite the RX 550's lower absolute score, both sit near the median of the entire GPU population.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card according to the data?

A: The GTX 1660's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT with an average score of 11627, just 0.5% behind. The RX 550's nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q at 11088, a 0.1% delta. The GTX 1660 also edges out the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M by 1.3% and the NVIDIA Tesla K20c by 1.8%, while trailing the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT by 1.4%.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The GTX 1660 has 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This represents a 2.75x advantage in shading units and TMUs for the NVIDIA card.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The GTX 1660 features 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus with 192.1 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 550 features 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has triple the capacity and roughly 71.5% more bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12 and Vulkan?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 and Vulkan, but with different feature levels. The GTX 1660 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is substantial and explains the benchmark disparity. The GTX 1660 is built on NVIDIA's Turing architecture using the TU116 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 6,600 million transistors into a 284 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². The RX 550 uses AMD's older GCN 4.0 architecture with the Lexa chip, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, with a transistor density of 21.4M per mm².

The GTX 1660 belongs to the GeForce 16 generation and is the successor to the GeForce 10 series, while the RX 550 is part of the Polaris (RX 500) generation, succeeding Arctic Islands and preceding Vega. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both rely on traditional rasterization.

Clock speeds differ meaningfully. The GTX 1660 runs at a 1530 MHz base clock and 1785 MHz boost. The RX 550 operates at 1100 MHz base and 1183 MHz boost. The NVIDIA card's boost clock is over 50% higher than the AMD card's boost clock.

Memory architecture also diverges. The GTX 1660 uses 2001 MHz memory with 8 Gbps effective speed, while the RX 550 uses 1750 MHz memory with 7 Gbps effective speed. The bus interface differs too: the GTX 1660 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, whereas the RX 550 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, halving the available PCIe lanes.

Power characteristics reveal a major design split. The GTX 1660 carries a 120 W TDP with a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested 300 W PSU. The RX 550 has a 50 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The RX 550 is also shorter at 145 mm (5.7 inches) versus 229 mm (9 inches) for the GTX 1660.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are lopsided in favor of the GTX 1660, with all three tests showing overwhelming NVIDIA dominance. The largest margin comes in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where the GTX 1660 scores 1065 against the RX 550's 127, a 738.6% delta. This test measures modern DirectX 12 gaming workloads, and the gap suggests the RX 550 struggles severely with contemporary rendering demands.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a 332.5% delta, with the GTX 1660 scoring 47850 versus 11063. This compute-oriented benchmark reflects general GPU processing capability, and the NVIDIA card's advantage here is consistent with its larger shader count and higher clock speeds.

Geekbench Vulkan narrows the gap slightly in percentage terms but remains decisive. The GTX 1660 scores 50137 against 12270, a 308.6% delta. Vulkan is a low-level API that can sometimes benefit efficiency-focused designs, but the raw hardware advantage of the GTX 1660 overwhelms any architectural efficiency the RX 550 might offer.

The GTX 1660's win count is 3, while the RX 550's is 0. No benchmark in this comparison favors the AMD card, and the smallest margin of victory is still over 300%. The pattern is unambiguous: the GTX 1660 is in a completely different performance tier.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. Process node: 12 nm for the GTX 1660 versus 14 nm for the RX 550. Transistor count: 6,600 million versus 2,200 million. Die size: 284 mm² versus 103 mm². Transistor density: 23.2M per mm² versus 21.4M per mm².

Clock speeds: base 1530 MHz versus 1100 MHz, boost 1785 MHz versus 1183 MHz. Memory clock: 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Memory capacity: 6 GB versus 2 GB. Memory bus: 192-bit versus 128-bit. Memory bandwidth: 192.1 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s.

Compute resources: 1408 shading units versus 512, 88 TMUs versus 32, 48 ROPs versus 16. Pixel rate: 85.68 GPixel/s versus 18.93 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 157.1 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s. FP32 performance: 5.027 TFLOPS versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS. FP16 performance: 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical: TDP 120 W versus 50 W, power connector 1x 8-pin versus none, suggested PSU 300 W versus 250 W, length 229 mm versus 145 mm. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are similar, with both offering DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort, though the RX 550's HDMI is version 2.0b versus 2.0 on the GTX 1660. DirectX support: 12_1 versus 12_0. Vulkan: 1.4 versus 1.3.

The Verdict

The data makes the hierarchy clear: the GTX 1660 is the superior performer by every measurable benchmark metric. Its average benchmark score of 11680 versus 11075 for the RX 550 reflects a 5.5% overall advantage, but the head-to-head results show the gap is far larger in specific workloads. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 1065 versus 127 demonstrates that the RX 550 is not competitive in modern gaming scenarios.

The GTX 1660's position in the 51st percentile versus the RX 550's 50th percentile shows both cards sit near the median of all GPUs, but that similarity masks the breadth of the performance gap. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the GTX 1660 trades blows with the RX 7800 XT (0.5% delta), a far more recent card, while the RX 550's closest rival is the RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, a workstation-class GPU that only edges it by 0.1%.

The RX 550's only advantages are power efficiency and physical footprint. Its 50 W TDP requires no power connector and a modest 250 W PSU, making it suitable for systems where power delivery is constrained. Its 145 mm length fits in compact cases. But these are practical trade-offs, not performance wins.

For any workload involving 3D rendering, compute, or modern gaming, the GTX 1660 is the clear choice. The RX 550 may suffice for basic display output or legacy applications, but the benchmark data shows it cannot keep pace in demanding scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 wins in: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a 738.6% advantage, making it vastly better for modern DirectX 12 gaming. Geekbench OpenCL shows a 332.5% lead, indicating dominance in general compute workloads. Geekbench Vulkan reveals a 308.6% advantage, covering Vulkan-based applications. Its 5.027 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS gives it roughly 4.1x the raw floating-point throughput. With 6 GB memory versus 2 GB, it handles larger textures and datasets. The 192-bit bus and 192.1 GB/s bandwidth versus 112.0 GB/s means faster data movement. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface doubles the lane count versus the RX 550's x8.

AMD Radeon RX 550 wins in: Power consumption, with a 50 W TDP versus 120 W, making it suitable for systems with limited power delivery. It requires no auxiliary power connector, unlike the GTX 1660's 8-pin connector. Its physical size is smaller at 145 mm versus 229 mm, fitting in compact or low-profile chassis. Its FP16 performance of 1,211.4 GFLOPS equals its FP32 throughput at a 1:1 ratio, whereas the GTX 1660's FP16 runs at a 2:1 ratio. It supports Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.4, a minor version difference. Its launch MSRP is 79 USD, though pricing is not a factor in performance analysis.