Quadro K3000M vs GeForce GTX 1660 Super

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Super with Quadro K3000M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1660 Super
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 125 Watt
33.13
+674%

GTX 1660 Super outperforms K3000M by a whopping 674% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking164681
Place by popularity9not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation57.141.79
Power efficiency18.253.93
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameTU116GK104
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date29 October 2019 (5 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 $155

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Super has 3092% better value for money than K3000M.

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 cores1408576
Core clock speed1530 MHz654 MHz
Boost clock speed1785 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,600 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate157.131.39
Floating-point processing power5.027 TFLOPS0.7534 TFLOPS
ROPs4832
TMUs8848

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinno data

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 typeGDDR6GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB2 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth336.0 GB/s89.6 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
G-SYNC support+-

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+
NVENC+no data
Ansel+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.55.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA7.5+

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.

GTX 1660 Super 33.13
+674%
K3000M 4.28

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.

GTX 1660 Super 12736
+674%
K3000M 1646

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.

GTX 1660 Super 21981
+806%
K3000M 2427

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.

GTX 1660 Super 76654
+544%
K3000M 11902

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.

GTX 1660 Super 62606
+1391%
K3000M 4199

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:

900p250−260
+658%
33
−658%
Full HD91
+176%
33
−176%
1440p55
+686%
7−8
−686%
4K30
+900%
3−4
−900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.52
+86.6%
4.70
−86.6%
1440p4.16
+432%
22.14
−432%
4K7.63
+577%
51.67
−577%
  • GTX 1660 Super has 87% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Super has 432% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 Super has 577% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 90
+650%
12−14
−650%
Cyberpunk 2077 76
+744%
9−10
−744%
Elden Ring 93
+830%
10−11
−830%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 92
+667%
12−14
−667%
Counter-Strike 2 62
+417%
12−14
−417%
Cyberpunk 2077 59
+556%
9−10
−556%
Forza Horizon 4 163
+806%
18−20
−806%
Metro Exodus 108
+1100%
9−10
−1100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 80
+471%
14−16
−471%
Valorant 143
+1688%
8−9
−1688%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+683%
12−14
−683%
Counter-Strike 2 52
+333%
12−14
−333%
Cyberpunk 2077 49
+444%
9−10
−444%
Dota 2 166
+1177%
12−14
−1177%
Elden Ring 96
+860%
10−11
−860%
Far Cry 5 147
+568%
21−24
−568%
Fortnite 150−160
+512%
24−27
−512%
Forza Horizon 4 129
+617%
18−20
−617%
Grand Theft Auto V 133
+923%
12−14
−923%
Metro Exodus 73
+711%
9−10
−711%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 233
+530%
35−40
−530%
Red Dead Redemption 2 43
+207%
14−16
−207%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 110−120
+707%
14−16
−707%
Valorant 77
+863%
8−9
−863%
World of Tanks 270−280
+285%
70−75
−285%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 79
+558%
12−14
−558%
Counter-Strike 2 48
+300%
12−14
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 44
+389%
9−10
−389%
Dota 2 211
+1523%
12−14
−1523%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+305%
21−24
−305%
Forza Horizon 4 112
+522%
18−20
−522%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 180−190
+403%
35−40
−403%
Valorant 122
+1425%
8−9
−1425%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 62
+1967%
3−4
−1967%
Elden Ring 56
+1300%
4−5
−1300%
Grand Theft Auto V 62
+1967%
3−4
−1967%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 162
+459%
27−30
−459%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27
+800%
3−4
−800%
World of Tanks 210−220
+607%
30−33
−607%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 56
+833%
6−7
−833%
Counter-Strike 2 29
+222%
9−10
−222%
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+525%
4−5
−525%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+1067%
9−10
−1067%
Forza Horizon 4 80
+1500%
5−6
−1500%
Metro Exodus 67
+3250%
2−3
−3250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+980%
5−6
−980%
Valorant 73
+508%
12−14
−508%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16
+700%
2−3
−700%
Dota 2 60
+275%
16−18
−275%
Elden Ring 27
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Grand Theft Auto V 60
+275%
16−18
−275%
Metro Exodus 22
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 101
+742%
12−14
−742%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60
+275%
16−18
−275%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 29
+867%
3−4
−867%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+725%
4−5
−725%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Dota 2 95
+494%
16−18
−494%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+820%
5−6
−820%
Fortnite 40−45
+1367%
3−4
−1367%
Forza Horizon 4 44
+2100%
2−3
−2100%
Valorant 34
+750%
4−5
−750%

This is how GTX 1660 Super and K3000M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Super is 658% faster in 900p
  • GTX 1660 Super is 176% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Super is 686% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 Super is 900% faster in 4K

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

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 Super is 3250% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 1660 Super surpassed K3000M in all 60 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.13 4.28
Recency 29 October 2019 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 75 Watt

GTX 1660 Super has a 674.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

K3000M, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Super is a desktop card while Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation 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.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Super
GeForce GTX 1660 Super
NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
Quadro K3000M

Other comparisons

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.


4.3 20816 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 69 votes

Rate Quadro K3000M 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.