GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile vs Quadro M5500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5500 with GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, including specs and performance data.
1660 Ti Mobile outperforms M5500 by a substantial 38% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 321 | 250 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 32.10 |
| Power efficiency | 9.69 | 25.14 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | TU116 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (9 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $229 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2048 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1140 MHz | 1455 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1165 MHz | 1590 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 149.1 | 152.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.772 TFLOPS | 4.884 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 128 | 96 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 1.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1536 KB |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1753 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 211 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
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 | 60−65
−46.7%
| 88
+46.7%
|
| 1440p | 40−45
−45%
| 58
+45%
|
| 4K | 24−27
−45.8%
| 35
+45.8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.60 |
| 1440p | no data | 3.95 |
| 4K | no data | 6.54 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
−34.9%
|
147
+34.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−110%
|
86
+110%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−38.8%
|
111
+38.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
−22%
|
133
+22%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−65.9%
|
68
+65.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
−51.9%
|
117
+51.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
−47.6%
|
93
+47.6%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−24.5%
|
120−130
+24.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−71.8%
|
134
+71.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
−63.9%
|
100
+63.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−45.2%
|
100−110
+45.2%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−44.1%
|
209
+44.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−28.8%
|
103
+28.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+7.9%
|
101
−7.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
−15.1%
|
260−270
+15.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−31.7%
|
54
+31.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−11%
|
121
+11%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
−27.3%
|
98
+27.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
−41.3%
|
89
+41.3%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−24.5%
|
120−130
+24.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−60.3%
|
125
+60.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
−47.5%
|
90
+47.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
−45.8%
|
105
+45.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−31.7%
|
54
+31.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−45.2%
|
100−110
+45.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
−90.7%
|
103
+90.7%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−42.8%
|
207
+42.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−17.5%
|
94
+17.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−26.8%
|
52
+26.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−6.4%
|
116
+6.4%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
−16.9%
|
90
+16.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
−31.7%
|
83
+31.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−26.9%
|
99
+26.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−49.3%
|
109
+49.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
−1.9%
|
55
+1.9%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+16%
|
125
−16%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
−4.9%
|
107
+4.9%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−51.3%
|
55−60
+51.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−34.3%
|
180−190
+34.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−50%
|
50−55
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−20%
|
30
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−2.3%
|
170−180
+2.3%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−9.4%
|
197
+9.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−25.5%
|
69
+25.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−38.9%
|
25
+38.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
−23.8%
|
52
+23.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−39.5%
|
60
+39.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−45.8%
|
70−75
+45.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−51.7%
|
40−45
+51.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
−53.3%
|
69
+53.3%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−58.8%
|
27−30
+58.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−48.6%
|
50−55
+48.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−18.8%
|
19
+18.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−25%
|
35
+25%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−38.2%
|
152
+38.2%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−31%
|
38
+31%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−58.8%
|
27−30
+58.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−25%
|
10
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−28.8%
|
85
+28.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
−36.8%
|
26
+36.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−40.9%
|
31
+40.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−38.2%
|
45−50
+38.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−52.6%
|
27−30
+52.6%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
−50%
|
30−33
+50%
|
This is how Quadro M5500 and GTX 1660 Ti Mobile compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 47% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 45% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 46% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro M5500 is 16% faster.
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 110% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro M5500 performs better in 2 tests (3%)
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile performs better in 62 tests (97%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.92 | 26.19 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 80 Watt |
Quadro M5500 has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, on the other hand, has a 38.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 87.5% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M5500 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M5500 is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
