AMD Radeon RX 6500M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 wins every single recorded head-to-head test against the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, taking all nine comparisons. The most decisive margin comes in the legacy DirectX 9 test, where the GTX 1660 scores 177 against 92 for the RX 6500M, a 92.4% advantage. That is nearly double the older API performance, an enormous gap for a test that still matters for older game titles and certain productivity workloads.

The compute-oriented tests also show a wide separation. In Passmark GPU Compute, the GTX 1660 records 4963 points versus 2669 for the RX 6500M, an 85.9% lead. The GTX 1660 also takes Passmark G2D by a massive 101.6% margin, scoring 776 against 385. That 2D test measures basic desktop and windowing operations, and the result indicates the NVIDIA part handles even lightweight graphical tasks with far more headroom.

The modern DirectX 12 test shows a 44.1% advantage for the GTX 1660, with scores of 49 and 34. This is notable because the RX 6500M is built on RDNA 2.0 architecture with DirectX 12 Ultimate support, yet it still trails by a substantial amount in this API. The DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 tests follow the same pattern: the GTX 1660 leads by 17.3% (61 vs 52) and 12.9% (79 vs 70), respectively.

The general 3D performance marker, Passmark G3D, gives the GTX 1660 a 54.6% win with 11646 points against 7531. The compute-oriented Geekbench tests also favor NVIDIA: OpenCL shows a 24% advantage (47850 vs 38586), while Vulkan shows a 14.4% edge (50137 vs 43837). Across the full head-to-head set, the average benchmark score for the GTX 1660 is 11680, while the RX 6500M sits at 10362, a difference of roughly 13% in aggregate.

When placed against its nearest rivals in the database, the GTX 1660 holds its ground well. It sits within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT average score (11627), within 1.3% of the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11528), and 1.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla K20c (11479). It trails the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT by 1.4% (11842). The RX 6500M, by contrast, sits near a cluster of much older or lower-tier parts: it is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10400), 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10273), 1.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10481), and 2.1% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10582). The GTX 1660 also holds a higher percentile ranking across all GPUs at 51, compared to 48 for the RX 6500M.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design generations and process nodes. The GTX 1660 uses the TU116 chip built on Turing architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 12 nm process. The RX 6500M uses the Navi 24 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 6 nm node. That newer node gives AMD a significant density advantage: the RX 6500M packs 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter, while the GTX 1660 manages 23.2 million per square millimeter. The Navi 24 die is also much smaller at 107 mm² versus 284 mm² for TU116. Total transistor counts are closer: 5,400 million for the AMD chip versus 6,600 million for the NVIDIA chip.

Core configurations differ substantially. The GTX 1660 has 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. The RX 6500M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 1660 therefore has roughly 37.5% more shading units, 37.5% more TMUs, and 50% more ROPs. The AMD part does include 16 ray accelerators, a feature the GTX 1660 lacks entirely, as it has no ray tracing cores. Neither GPU has tensor cores.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The RX 6500M runs a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with a game clock of 2191 MHz. The GTX 1660 has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost of 1785 MHz. The AMD part clocks substantially higher, but the NVIDIA part compensates with more execution resources and a wider memory interface.

Memory architecture is one of the clearest differentiators. The GTX 1660 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 192.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s. Even though the GDDR6 memory runs at a higher effective speed (18 Gbps versus 8 Gbps), the narrow 64-bit bus severely limits total bandwidth. The GTX 1660 also has more memory capacity, which matters for texture-heavy workloads and larger frame buffers.

Theoretical throughput numbers favor the GTX 1660 in most categories. It reaches 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 157.1 GTexel/s of texture rate, and 85.68 GPixel/s of pixel rate. The RX 6500M is close in FP32 at 4.915 TFLOPS and texture rate at 153.6 GTexel/s, but lags in pixel rate at 76.80 GPixel/s. FP16 performance is nearly identical: 10.05 TFLOPS for the GTX 1660 versus 9.830 TFLOPS for the RX 6500M, both at a 2:1 ratio. The RX 6500M does support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GTX 1660 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Power and physical characteristics diverge sharply. The GTX 1660 is a 120 W dual-slot card requiring a 300 W suggested power supply and a single 8-pin connector. The RX 6500M is an integrated graphics package rated at just 50 W with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The RX 6500M has no length or dimensions listed in the database, as it is a mobile IGP. The GTX 1660 measures 229 mm by 111 mm by 35 mm. The RX 6500M uses a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface, while the GTX 1660 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The RX 6500M also has portable-device-dependent display outputs, whereas the GTX 1660 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Release timing differs as well. The GTX 1660 came out in March 2019, while the RX 6500M arrived in January 2022. Both are now end-of-life products. The GTX 1660 had a launch MSRP of 219 USD, while the RX 6500M has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1660 wins every benchmark category recorded, so the use-case split is heavily one-sided. The largest wins come in older API tests: DirectX 9 (92.4% ahead), DirectX 12 (44.1% ahead), and DirectX 10 (17.3% ahead). This suggests the GTX 1660 is the better choice for legacy game libraries and applications that still rely on older DirectX paths. The 2D performance gap (101.6%) also points to a superior desktop experience, though this matters less for gaming.

For general 3D rendering, the Passmark G3D result (54.6% ahead) shows the GTX 1660 handles modern game workloads with substantially more headroom. The compute tests reinforce this: GPU Compute (85.9% ahead), OpenCL (24% ahead), and Vulkan (14.4% ahead) all favor NVIDIA. The GTX 1660 is therefore the stronger option for GPU-accelerated compute tasks, OpenCL-based applications, and Vulkan titles.

The RX 6500M does have some theoretical advantages that could matter in specific scenarios. Its 16 ray accelerators support hardware ray tracing, which the GTX 1660 cannot do at all. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, enabling features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading in titles that use them. The 6 nm process means much lower power draw at 50 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where the GTX 1660's 120 W desktop power requirement is not feasible. The RX 6500M's higher clocks (2400 MHz boost versus 1785 MHz) and faster GDDR6 memory (18 Gbps effective versus 8 Gbps) are architectural advantages, but the database shows they do not translate into benchmark wins.

The RX 6500M is also newer, with a January 2022 release date compared to March 2019 for the GTX 1660. However, newer does not mean faster in the recorded data. The RX 6500M's average benchmark score of 10362 places it near the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and AMD Radeon RX 550X, both much older parts. The GTX 1660, by contrast, sits within a few percentage points of the RX 7800 XT, a far more modern and powerful GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in DirectX 12 performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 wins the Passmark DirectX 12 test with a score of 49 versus 34 for the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, a 44.1% advantage.

Q: Does the RX 6500M have ray tracing support?

A: Yes, the RX 6500M includes 16 ray accelerators and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The GTX 1660 has no ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The GTX 1660 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 192.1 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The GTX 1660 is rated at 120 W, requires a 300 W suggested power supply, and uses a single 8-pin power connector. The RX 6500M is rated at 50 W, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU is larger in physical size?

A: The GTX 1660 is a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width. The RX 6500M is an integrated graphics package with no recorded dimensions.

Q: What is the overall benchmark standing of each GPU?

A: The GTX 1660 has an average benchmark score of 11680 and ranks at the 51st percentile of all GPUs. The RX 6500M has an average score of 10362 and ranks at the 48th percentile.

The Verdict

The recorded data makes the choice clear for raw performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 beats the AMD Radeon RX 6500M in every head-to-head benchmark. The GTX 1660 wins all nine tests, with margins ranging from 12.9% in DirectX 11 to 101.6% in Passmark G2D. Its average benchmark score of 11680 is roughly 13% higher than the RX 6500M's 10362, and it places higher in the overall GPU percentile rankings at 51 versus 48.

The GTX 1660 is the better pick for desktop users who want stronger DirectX 9, DirectX 10, DirectX 11, and DirectX 12 performance, as well as better compute throughput in OpenCL and Vulkan. Its 6 GB memory capacity and 192-bit bus provide more bandwidth and room for larger assets. The 120 W power draw is higher, but that is expected for a dual-slot desktop card with a 300 W suggested PSU.

The RX 6500M is the better pick only in scenarios where the GTX 1660 cannot physically be used. Its 50 W power envelope and integrated design make it suitable for laptops, and its 16 ray accelerators provide hardware ray tracing that the GTX 1660 lacks. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate features. However, none of those advantages show up as benchmark wins in the database. The RX 6500M's scores cluster near older parts like the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 and AMD Radeon RX 550X, while the GTX 1660 sits within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT.

For any user comparing these two directly and able to accommodate the GTX 1660's power and size requirements, the data points exclusively to the NVIDIA card. It is faster in every recorded test, has more memory, wider memory bandwidth, and a higher average benchmark score. The RX 6500M offers architectural features like ray tracing and a newer process node, but those do not compensate for the performance deficit shown across the entire benchmark suite.