GeForce GTX 1660 vs Radeon Pro 555X

Place in the ranking	505	188
Place by popularity	not in top-100	40
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	46.94
Power efficiency	7.73	17.40
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Polaris 21	TU116
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	16 July 2018 (6 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 cores	768	1408
Core clock speed	907 MHz	1530 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	120 Watt
Texture fill rate	43.54	157.1
Floating-point processing power	1.393 TFLOPS	5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	48
TMUs	48	88

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 size	large	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 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 type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1275 MHz	2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth	81.6 GB/s	192.1 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 Connectors	No outputs	1x 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.

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
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 555X 8.42

GTX 1660 30.33
+260%

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 555X 3235

GTX 1660 11661
+260%

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 555X 12691

GTX 1660 57923
+356%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Pro 555X 13051

GTX 1660 56067
+330%

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 HD	21−24 −300%	84 +300%
1440p	14−16 −264%	51 +264%
4K	7−8 −286%	27 +286%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.61
1440p	no data	4.29
4K	no data	8.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −350%	72 +350%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −344%	71 +344%
Elden Ring	21−24 −265%	84 +265%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −230%	85−90 +230%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −250%	56 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −244%	55 +244%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −288%	132 +288%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −332%	95 +332%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −387%	112 +387%
Valorant	30−33 −360%	138 +360%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −230%	85−90 +230%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −200%	48 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −181%	45 +181%
Dota 2	30−33 −400%	150 +400%
Elden Ring	21−24 −291%	90 +291%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −303%	145 +303%
Fortnite	45−50 −194%	140−150 +194%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −224%	110 +224%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 −283%	115 +283%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −200%	66 +200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −222%	216 +222%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −73.9%	40 +73.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −292%	100−110 +292%
Valorant	30−33 −117%	65 +117%
World of Tanks	120−130 −117%	270−280 +117%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −230%	85−90 +230%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −169%	43 +169%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −138%	38 +138%
Dota 2	30−33 −557%	197 +557%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −136%	85−90 +136%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −179%	95 +179%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −164%	170−180 +164%
Valorant	30−33 −283%	115 +283%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−11 −420%	52 +420%
Elden Ring	10−12 −327%	47 +327%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−11 −420%	52 +420%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −207%	129 +207%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −257%	25 +257%
World of Tanks	60−65 −221%	190−200 +221%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −300%	60−65 +300%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −160%	26 +160%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −283%	23 +283%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −422%	90−95 +422%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −294%	67 +294%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −321%	59 +321%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −380%	45−50 +380%
Valorant	21−24 −243%	72 +243%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	2−3 −700%	16 +700%
Dota 2	18−20 −158%	49 +158%
Elden Ring	5−6 −320%	21 +320%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −158%	49 +158%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −400%	20 +400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 −238%	81 +238%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −280%	18−20 +280%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −158%	49 +158%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −371%	30−35 +371%
Counter-Strike 2	2−3 −1350%	27−30 +1350%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −400%	10 +400%
Dota 2	18−20 −358%	87 +358%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −320%	40−45 +320%
Fortnite	8−9 −400%	40−45 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −260%	36 +260%
Valorant	8−9 −375%	38 +375%

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

GTX 1660 is 300% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 is 264% faster in 1440p
GTX 1660 is 286% faster in 4K

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

in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 is 1350% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, GTX 1660 surpassed Pro 555X in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.42	30.33
Recency	16 July 2018	14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	120 Watt

Pro 555X has 60% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 260.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, a 50% 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 555X in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 555X 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.