GeForce GTX 1660 vs Radeon Pro 555

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 555 with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.

Pro 555
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
8.15

GTX 1660 outperforms Pro 555 by a whopping 272% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking513186
Place by popularitynot in top-10039
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data48.17
Power efficiency7.4517.30
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code namePolaris 21TU116
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date5 June 2017 (7 years ago)14 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores7681408
Core clock speed850 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1785 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate40.80157.1
Floating-point processing power1.306 TFLOPS5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs1648
TMUs4888

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 8-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1275 MHz2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth81.6 GB/s192.1 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA-7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro 555 8.15
GTX 1660 30.28
+272%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Pro 555 3140
GTX 1660 11669
+272%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Pro 555 5185
GTX 1660 21064
+306%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Pro 555 3721
GTX 1660 14164
+281%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Pro 555 22624
GTX 1660 81755
+261%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Pro 555 11375
GTX 1660 57961
+410%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Pro 555 217690
GTX 1660 570753
+162%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Pro 555 11961
GTX 1660 56067
+369%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

Pro 555 31
GTX 1660 120
+293%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

Pro 555 49
GTX 1660 49
+1%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

Pro 555 14
+65.1%
GTX 1660 9

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

Pro 555 31
GTX 1660 60
+93.2%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

Pro 555 33
GTX 1660 40
+21%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

Pro 555 9
GTX 1660 27
+198%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

Pro 555 20
GTX 1660 63
+218%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 3dsmax-05

Pro 555 27
GTX 1660 134
+402%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD34
−144%
83
+144%
1440p12−14
−308%
49
+308%
4K12
−117%
26
+117%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.64
1440pno data4.47
4Kno data8.42

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−446%
71
+446%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20
−225%
65−70
+225%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
−436%
59
+436%
Battlefield 5 32
−209%
95−100
+209%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
−329%
73
+329%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−346%
58
+346%
Far Cry 5 26
−162%
65−70
+162%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
−235%
75−80
+235%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−206%
160−170
+206%
Hitman 3 16−18
−331%
69
+331%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
−551%
306
+551%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−500%
144
+500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−387%
112
+387%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 42
−150%
100−110
+150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
−298%
227
+298%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 26
−373%
123
+373%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
−282%
42
+282%
Battlefield 5 26
−281%
95−100
+281%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
−294%
67
+294%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−262%
47
+262%
Far Cry 5 21
−224%
65−70
+224%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
−235%
75−80
+235%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−206%
160−170
+206%
Hitman 3 16−18
−319%
67
+319%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
−511%
287
+511%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−371%
113
+371%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−243%
79
+243%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
−307%
110
+307%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−178%
60−65
+178%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
−275%
214
+275%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
−225%
65−70
+225%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
−236%
37
+236%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
−188%
49
+188%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−208%
40
+208%
Far Cry 5 15
−353%
65−70
+353%
Forza Horizon 4 18
−444%
98
+444%
Hitman 3 16−18
−269%
59
+269%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
−97.9%
93
+97.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
−252%
95
+252%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
−307%
57
+307%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+96.6%
29
−96.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−252%
81
+252%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−256%
55−60
+256%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−283%
45−50
+283%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−300%
30−35
+300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−575%
27
+575%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−325%
34
+325%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−500%
24
+500%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−289%
35−40
+289%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−444%
170−180
+444%
Hitman 3 12−14
−225%
39
+225%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−294%
67
+294%
Metro Exodus 10−11
−490%
59
+490%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−738%
67
+738%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
−260%
187
+260%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−279%
53
+279%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Hitman 3 4−5
−425%
21
+425%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
−110%
63
+110%
Metro Exodus 6−7
−633%
44
+633%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−600%
35
+600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−280%
18−20
+280%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−275%
15
+275%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−325%
17
+325%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−900%
10
+900%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−325%
16−18
+325%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−456%
50
+456%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−800%
36
+800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
−300%
12
+300%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−225%
26
+225%

This is how Pro 555 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 is 144% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 is 308% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 is 117% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 555 is 97% faster.
  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 is 900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro 555 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • GTX 1660 is ahead in 71 test (99%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.15 30.28
Recency 5 June 2017 14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 120 Watt

Pro 555 has 60% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 271.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 555 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 555 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon Pro 555
Radeon Pro 555
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
GeForce GTX 1660

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 88 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 555 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 5335 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.