AMD Radeon 660M vs AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT and the AMD Radeon 660M represent two very different approaches to graphics processing, but their benchmark scores place them in adjacent performance tiers. The RX 5500 XT is a dedicated, end-of-life discrete graphics card from the Radeon RX 5000 series, built for desktop systems, while the 660M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) from the Rembrandt mobile lineup. Despite this fundamental difference, the data shows a clear and consistent performance gap, with the discrete card dominating the integrated solution in every measurable test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is stark, with the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT winning both available benchmark contests outright. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 5500 XT scores 46,965 points against the 660M’s 12,876 points. This translates to a delta of 264.7%, meaning the discrete card is roughly two and a half times faster in this compute-oriented workload. The margin is substantial enough to classify the 660M as a fundamentally different performance class, despite its more modern architecture.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, though the gap narrows slightly in percentage terms. The RX 5500 XT achieves 44,191 points, while the 660M manages 14,748 points. The delta here is 199.6%, indicating the discrete card is still nearly three times faster in this graphics API. This is particularly notable because Vulkan is often considered a more efficient, lower-overhead API that can benefit newer architectures; the 660M’s RDNA 2.0 architecture does not close the gap against the older RDNA 1.0 part.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the RX 5500 XT’s average benchmark score is 14,692, based on 11 different tests including 3DMark Steel Nomad, PassMark G3D, and various Geekbench compute tests. The 660M’s average score is 13,812, derived from just two Geekbench results. This puts the two cards in adjacent percentile rankings, with the RX 5500 XT at the 57th percentile of all GPUs and the 660M at the 55th percentile. The average score delta is only about 6.4% in favor of the RX 5500 XT, but the head-to-head results reveal that the 660M’s average is buoyed by its relatively stronger Vulkan showing.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT wins decisively in every direct comparison available. Its OpenCL score of 46,965 dwarfs the 660M’s 12,876, making it the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks, such as rendering, video encoding acceleration, or scientific workloads that leverage OpenCL. The 264.7% advantage in this test is the single largest margin between the two cards in any metric.

In Vulkan gaming workloads, the RX 5500 XT also takes the crown, scoring 44,191 versus the 660M’s 14,748. This 199.6% lead suggests that even in modern, low-overhead game engines, the dedicated graphics card maintains a massive performance advantage. The 660M’s higher boost clock of 1900 MHz compared to the RX 5500 XT’s 1845 MHz does not compensate for its significantly lower shading unit count and memory bandwidth.

Where the 660M could be considered a “winner” is in system integration and power efficiency, though this is not reflected in raw benchmark scores. The 660M has a TDP of just 40 W and requires no power connectors, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where the RX 5500 XT’s 130 W TDP and 1x 8-pin power connector would be impractical. The 660M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and includes 6 ray tracing cores, features absent from the RX 5500 XT’s DirectX 12 (12_1) feature set. However, these architectural advantages do not translate into benchmark wins in the data provided.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different process nodes and architectures, which explains some of their performance characteristics. The RX 5500 XT uses the Navi 14 chip on TSMC’s 7 nm process, with 6,400 million transistors packed into a 158 mm² die. The 660M, codenamed Rembrandt, is fabricated on a more advanced 6 nm process and contains 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die. This makes the 660M’s die larger and denser, with a transistor density of 63.0M per mm² versus the RX 5500 XT’s 40.5M per mm².

The architectures themselves differ by one generation. The RX 5500 XT employs RDNA 1.0, while the 660M uses RDNA 2.0. Despite the newer architecture, the 660M has far fewer execution resources: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The RX 5500 XT has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This massive difference in core counts is the primary reason for the performance gap.

Memory configurations are also fundamentally different. The RX 5500 XT has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 660M uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as “System Dependent.” This means the integrated GPU must share the system’s main memory, which is typically slower than dedicated VRAM. The RX 5500 XT’s dedicated memory also enables higher pixel and texture fill rates: 59.04 GPixel/s and 162.4 GTexel/s, respectively, versus the 660M’s 30.40 GPixel/s and 45.60 GTexel/s.

Compute performance follows the same trend. The RX 5500 XT delivers 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the 660M offers 1,459.2 GFLOPS (approximately 1.46 TFLOPS). The RX 5500 XT also has higher FP16 throughput at 10.39 TFLOPS (2:1) versus the 660M’s 2.918 TFLOPS (2:1). The 660M does include 6 ray tracing cores, a feature the RX 5500 XT lacks entirely, but this does not appear in the benchmark data.

The Verdict

The data strongly favors the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT for any performance-driven use case. Its 264.7% lead in OpenCL and 199.6% lead in Vulkan make it the unequivocal choice for gaming, content creation, or compute tasks where frame rates and rendering times matter. The discrete card’s 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory, 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32 performance provide a substantial advantage that the 660M cannot overcome, despite its newer RDNA 2.0 architecture and higher boost clock.

The 660M’s only advantages are qualitative: it is an IGP with a 40 W TDP, no power connectors, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and ray tracing. For users building a desktop system or upgrading an existing one, the RX 5500 XT is the only sensible choice based on the benchmark data. Its average benchmark score of 14,692 places it in the 57th percentile of all GPUs, slightly ahead of rivals like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 (delta -0.4%) and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (delta 2.1%).

For laptop buyers, the 660M is the only option of the two, as the RX 5500 XT is a dual-slot, 180 mm discrete card requiring a 300 W PSU. The 660M’s 55th percentile ranking is respectable for an integrated solution, landing near the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (delta -0.1%) and the AMD Radeon RX 570X (delta -0.4%). However, anyone expecting desktop-class performance from an IGP should temper their expectations. The data shows that the RX 5500 XT is nearly three times faster in Vulkan and over three and a half times faster in OpenCL, making the 660M suitable primarily for light gaming and general productivity, not demanding workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT is significantly faster, scoring 44,191 points compared to the AMD Radeon 660M’s 14,748 points, a delta of 199.6%.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT has an average benchmark score of 14,692, while the AMD Radeon 660M has an average score of 13,812.

Q: How much larger is the RX 5500 XT’s die compared to the 660M?

A: The RX 5500 XT has a die size of 158 mm², while the 660M has a die size of 208 mm², making the 660M’s die approximately 32% larger.

Q: Does the 660M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon 660M includes 6 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The RX 5500 XT does not have ray tracing cores and supports only DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the difference in FP32 compute performance?

A: The RX 5500 XT delivers 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the 660M delivers 1,459.2 GFLOPS. This makes the RX 5500 XT approximately 3.5 times faster in this metric.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the RX 5500 XT by average score?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 (14,747 avg score, -0.4% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 (14,532 avg score, 1.1% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M (14,404 avg score, 2% delta).