AMD Radeon RX 5500M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data is unequivocal: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 wins all nine benchmark comparisons, while the AMD Radeon RX 5500M takes zero. The largest margin appears in Passmark G3D, where the GTX 1660 scores 11,646 against the RX 5500M’s 5,848, a delta of -49.8% for the AMD part. That is nearly half the performance in the primary 3D graphics aggregate, making the NVIDIA card the clear pick for raw rasterization workloads.

Compute-oriented tests show an even wider gulf. In Passmark GPU Compute, the GTX 1660 posts 4,963 versus 2,316, a delta of -53.3%, the single biggest percentage gap in the entire comparison. This suggests the NVIDIA architecture handles general-purpose GPU tasks with substantially more headroom. The Geekbench OpenCL result follows the same pattern: 47,850 for NVIDIA against 38,725 for AMD, a -19.1% difference. Vulkan performance is closer in relative terms but still lopsided, with the GTX 1660 at 50,137 and the RX 5500M at 35,693, a -28.8% delta.

The DirectX suite reinforces NVIDIA’s dominance across every API generation. Passmark DirectX 11 shows the largest single delta at -55.7%, with scores of 79 and 35 respectively. DirectX 12 narrows the gap slightly to -42.9% (49 versus 28), while DirectX 10 sits at -36.1% (61 versus 39). Even legacy DirectX 9, where the RX 5500M scores a perfect 100, the GTX 1660 still outpaces it with 177, a -43.5% delta. The 2D test is similarly one-sided: the GTX 1660 scores 776 against 414, a -46.6% difference.

What stands out is not just that NVIDIA wins every test, but that the margins are consistently large. The smallest delta is the -19.1% in Geekbench OpenCL, which is still a substantial gap. Across the nine benchmarks, the average delta is roughly -41.7%, meaning the RX 5500M trails by about two-fifths on a typical workload. No test shows AMD within striking distance, and no workload favors the Radeon’s feature set enough to flip the outcome.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon RX 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip on RDNA 1.0 architecture, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 uses the TU116 chip on Turing architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 12 nm node. The process disparity is notable: AMD packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million per mm². NVIDIA’s TU116 contains 6,600 million transistors across a much larger 284 mm² die, giving a density of only 23.2 million per mm². This means AMD achieves higher density on paper, but the NVIDIA chip’s larger physical size accommodates more memory interface and ROP resources.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The RX 5500M ships with 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1660 offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, but its bandwidth is lower at 192.1 GB/s. Despite the GDDR6 advantage in the AMD part, the NVIDIA card’s larger frame buffer and wider bus give it more capacity for high-resolution textures, even if raw bandwidth is less. The memory clock rates reflect this: AMD runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while NVIDIA runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The GDDR6 technology in the RX 5500M is faster per pin, but the GTX 1660 compensates with more pins.

Core counts are identical in one respect: both have 1408 shading units and 88 texture mapping units. The ROP count differs, however, with the RX 5500M at 32 and the GTX 1660 at 48. This 50% ROP advantage for NVIDIA directly contributes to its higher pixel rate: 85.68 GPixel/s versus 52.64 GPixel/s for AMD. Texture rate also favors NVIDIA, at 157.1 GTexel/s compared to 144.8 GTexel/s, a smaller but still meaningful edge. The FP32 throughput is 5.027 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 4.632 TFLOPS for AMD, and FP16 follows the same pattern at 10.05 TFLOPS versus 9.265 TFLOPS (both 2:1 ratios).

Clock speeds show NVIDIA running higher across the board. The GTX 1660 has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost of 1785 MHz, while the RX 5500M operates at 1375 MHz base and 1645 MHz boost. The AMD part also lists a game clock of 1448 MHz, which sits between its base and boost figures. Power consumption is lower for AMD at 85 W TDP versus 120 W for NVIDIA, and the RX 5500M requires no external power connectors while the GTX 1660 needs a single 8-pin. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD against PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA, though both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

Given the head-to-head sweep, the GTX 1660 wins in every measurable category from the database. Its largest advantages come in compute and DirectX 11 workloads, where the deltas exceed 50%. The Passmark G3D score of 11,646 versus 5,848 places the NVIDIA card in a different performance tier for general 3D rendering. The GTX 1660 also excels in legacy API scenarios, as shown by its DirectX 9 score of 177 versus 100, which indicates strong backward compatibility.

The RX 5500M does have one area of qualitative superiority: efficiency. Its 85 W TDP is significantly lower than the GTX 1660’s 120 W, and it draws power entirely from the slot without needing an 8-pin connector. This makes it suitable for thinner laptop designs, which aligns with its "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs. The 7 nm process and smaller die size (158 mm² versus 284 mm²) also suggest better power-per-transistor characteristics, even if the raw performance does not follow.

For users prioritizing memory bandwidth, the RX 5500M’s 224.0 GB/s exceeds the GTX 1660’s 192.1 GB/s, a 16.6% advantage. This could matter in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios, though the recorded benchmarks do not include a test that isolates this variable. The AMD part also uses newer GDDR6 memory, which carries a theoretical latency and efficiency benefit over the GTX 1660’s GDDR5. However, none of the nine head-to-head tests reflect this advantage, as the NVIDIA card wins even the compute-heavy workloads.

The Verdict

The database is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms the AMD Radeon RX 5500M in every recorded benchmark, with deltas ranging from -19.1% to -55.7%. The GTX 1660’s average benchmark score of 11,680 exceeds the RX 5500M’s 13,356, though this aggregate includes the AMD part’s Geekbench Metal score of 50,359, which is not part of the head-to-head set. The percentile ranking tells a similar story: the GTX 1660 sits at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 5500M ranks slightly higher at the 54th percentile, but this ranking is skewed by the Metal test where AMD’s score is exceptionally high.

For pure performance, the GTX 1660 is the clear choice. Its 6 GB frame buffer, 48 ROPs, and higher clock speeds deliver consistently better results across DirectX, Vulkan, OpenCL, and compute workloads. The RX 5500M’s only advantages are lower power draw (85 W versus 120 W), no external power connector, higher memory bandwidth (224.0 GB/s versus 192.1 GB/s), and a more advanced 7 nm process. These factors make it a better fit for ultraportable laptops where thermals and battery life take priority over frame rates.

The GTX 1660’s launch MSRP was 219 USD, and it carries a dual-slot cooler with a 229 mm length. The RX 5500M has no recorded launch MSRP, reflecting its mobile-only positioning. Users who need maximum performance in a desktop or gaming laptop should choose the GTX 1660. Users who require an efficient, slot-powered mobile GPU with a smaller footprint and lower power demands should consider the RX 5500M, but they must accept a substantial performance penalty in every tested workload.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the most benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 wins all nine benchmarks. The AMD Radeon RX 5500M wins zero.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest delta is in Passmark GPU Compute, where the GTX 1660 scores 4,963 against 2,316, a -53.3% difference for the RX 5500M.

Q: Does the AMD card have any memory advantage?

A: Yes, the RX 5500M has a higher memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s compared to the GTX 1660’s 192.1 GB/s, and it uses GDDR6 instead of GDDR5.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The RX 5500M has an 85 W TDP and requires no external power connectors. The GTX 1660 has a 120 W TDP and needs a single 8-pin connector with a suggested 300 W PSU.

Q: What are the ROP counts and how do they affect performance?

A: The GTX 1660 has 48 ROPs versus 32 on the RX 5500M. This contributes to the NVIDIA card’s pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s against 52.64 GPixel/s.

Q: Is the GTX 1660’s average benchmark score higher?

A: No, the RX 5500M has a higher average benchmark score of 13,356 versus 11,680 for the GTX 1660. This is due to the AMD card’s Geekbench Metal score of 50,359, which is not included in the head-to-head tests.