Component comparison
GeForce MX550 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
GeForce MX550 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce MX550
- + Release year (+2)
- + Die size (mm²) (+84 mm²)
- + Energy efficiency (+8.0)
B
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
- + VRAM (GB) (+4 GB)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+192 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+128 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+55 W)
- + Transistors (M) (+1,900M)
- + CUDA cores (+512)
- + TMUs (+64)
- + ROPs (+32)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+1.40 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+63.84 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+127.66 GTexel/s)
- + PassMark (overall) (+8199)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+3189)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+8692)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+26843)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+25761)
- + Normalized score (+14.5)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce MX550
|
Component B
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2021 (+2) | 2019 |
| VRAM (GB) | 2 GB | 6 GB (+4 GB) |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1500 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 96 GB/s | 288 GB/s (+192 GB/s) |
| Memory bus (bit) | 64 bit | 192 bit (+128 bit) |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 25 W | 80 W (+55 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 4,700M | 6,600M (+1,900M) |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² (+84 mm²) | 284 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | 1065 MHz | — |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1320 MHz | — |
| CUDA cores | 1,024 | 1,536 (+512) |
| TMUs | 32 | 96 (+64) |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 (+32) |
| RT cores | — | — |
| Tensor cores | — | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 2.70 TFLOPS | 4.10 TFLOPS (+1.40 TFLOPS) |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 21.12 GPixel/s | 84.96 GPixel/s (+63.84 GPixel/s) |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 42.24 GTexel/s | 169.90 GTexel/s (+127.66 GTexel/s) |
| Energy efficiency | 32.8 (+8.0) | 24.9 |
| PassMark (overall) | 4,419 | 12,618 (+8199) |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 2,470 | 5,659 (+3189) |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 6,126 | 14,818 (+8692) |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 34,068 | 60,911 (+26843) |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 32,369 | 58,130 (+25761) |
| Normalized score | 49.1 | 63.7 (+14.5) |
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce MX550 | GeForce GTX 1660 Ti | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 45 FPS | 111 FPS | 146.7% (B) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55 FPS | 147 FPS | 167.3% (B) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21 FPS | 86 FPS | 309.5% (B) |
| Dota 2 | 111 FPS | 121 FPS | 9% (B) |
| Far Cry 5 | 45 FPS | 93 FPS | 106.7% (B) |
| Fortnite | 60 FPS | 120 FPS | 100% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45 FPS | 134 FPS | 197.8% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 47 FPS | 107 FPS | 127.7% (B) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 21 FPS | 54 FPS | 157.1% (B) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 21 FPS | 75 FPS | 257.1% (B) |
| The Witcher 3 | 50 FPS | 103 FPS | 106% (B) |
| Valorant | 95 FPS | 209 FPS | 120% (B) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti wins 17 of the comparable criteria.
The choice depends on your use case.
🤔 How to choose
Universal advice for any use case.
- Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) ↔ price (median 385.1).
- Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) ↔ overall performance (median 49.8).
- Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) ↔ battery life (median 2.8).