GeForce GTX 1660 vs FirePro M5950
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms FirePro M5950 by 791% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 690 | 171 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 52 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 0.29 | 25.02 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | Whistler-XT | Turing TU116 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 13 April 2011 (13 years ago) | 14 March 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $219 |
| Current price | $386 | $252 (1.2x MSRP) |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1660 has 8528% better value for money than FirePro M5950.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 480 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.40 | 157.1 |
| Floating-point performance | 696.0 gflops | no data |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on FirePro M5950 and GeForce GTX 1660 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Form factor | MXM-A | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57 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 | no data | + |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | no data | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms FirePro M5950 by 791% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms FirePro M5950 by 790% in Passmark.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms FirePro M5950 by 1038% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms FirePro M5950 by 1465% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms FirePro M5950 by 4639% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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:
| 900p | 24
−775%
| 210−220
+775%
|
| Full HD | 26
−231%
| 86
+231%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
−860%
| 48
+860%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−833%
| 28
+833%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1083%
|
71
+1083%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−1040%
|
55−60
+1040%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−5800%
|
59
+5800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1075%
|
90−95
+1075%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
−762%
|
112
+762%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−867%
|
58
+867%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100
+1567%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−1483%
|
95
+1483%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−1367%
|
132
+1367%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110
+1471%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 6−7
−1267%
|
82
+1267%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−943%
|
73
+943%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−830%
|
93
+830%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−2500%
|
78
+2500%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−1040%
|
55−60
+1040%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−4100%
|
42
+4100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1075%
|
90−95
+1075%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
−554%
|
85
+554%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−683%
|
47
+683%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1433%
|
92
+1433%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−1383%
|
89
+1383%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−1267%
|
123
+1267%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−1186%
|
90
+1186%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 6−7
−917%
|
61
+917%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−1040%
|
57
+1040%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−471%
|
40
+471%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−680%
|
78
+680%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−1175%
|
102
+1175%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−2100%
|
66
+2100%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−1040%
|
55−60
+1040%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−3600%
|
37
+3600%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1075%
|
90−95
+1075%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−567%
|
40
+567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1333%
|
86
+1333%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−1267%
|
82
+1267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−989%
|
98
+989%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−613%
|
57
+613%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−867%
|
29
+867%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
−850%
|
57
+850%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−850%
|
57
+850%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
−300%
|
40
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−3200%
|
33
+3200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1150%
|
25
+1150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−586%
|
48
+586%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−3200%
|
30−35
+3200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1100%
|
24
+1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1080%
|
59
+1080%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 59 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3700%
|
76
+3700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1200%
|
35−40
+1200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−967%
|
32
+967%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−933%
|
31
+933%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−57.1%
|
11
+57.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 24 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−1400%
|
15
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 10 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−650%
|
30
+650%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−417%
|
31
+417%
|
This is how FirePro M5950 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is 775% faster than FirePro M5950 in 900p
- GTX 1660 is 231% faster than FirePro M5950 in 1080p
- GTX 1660 is 860% faster than FirePro M5950 in 1440p
- GTX 1660 is 833% faster than FirePro M5950 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 is 5800% faster than the FirePro M5950.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1660 surpassed FirePro M5950 in all 57 of our tests.
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 3.39 | 30.20 |
| Recency | 13 April 2011 | 14 March 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 120 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M5950 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M5950 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.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
