Quadro P400 vs GeForce GTX 660 Ti

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 660 Ti with Quadro P400, including specs and performance data.

GTX 660 Ti
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
11.48
+169%

GTX 660 Ti outperforms P400 by a whopping 169% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking415677
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.092.85
Power efficiency5.339.90
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGK104GP107
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date16 August 2012 (12 years ago)7 February 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$299 $119.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 660 Ti has 8% better value for money than Quadro P400.

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 cores1344256
Core clock speed915 MHz1228 MHz
Boost clock speed980 MHz1252 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate109.820.03
Floating-point processing power2.634 TFLOPS0.641 TFLOPS
ROPs2416
TMUs11216

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).

Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length241 mm145 mm
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width192-bit GDDR564 Bit
Memory clock speed6.0 GB/s1002 MHz
Memory bandwidth144.2 GB/s32.06 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 ConnectorsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort3x mini-DisplayPort
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray+-
3D Gaming+-
3D Vision+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.34.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA+6.1

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 660 Ti 11.48
+169%
Quadro P400 4.26

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 660 Ti 4427
+169%
Quadro P400 1645

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 660 Ti 15328
+173%
Quadro P400 5623

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

GTX 660 Ti 15397
+200%
Quadro P400 5134

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.

GTX 660 Ti 11274
+98.1%
Quadro P400 5691

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 HD76
+181%
27−30
−181%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.934.44

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+200%
6−7
−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+200%
6−7
−200%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+200%
12−14
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+188%
8−9
−188%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+200%
6−7
−200%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+220%
10−11
−220%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+181%
27−30
−181%
Hitman 3 21−24
+175%
8−9
−175%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+190%
21−24
−190%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+208%
12−14
−208%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+220%
10−11
−220%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+208%
12−14
−208%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+183%
24−27
−183%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+200%
6−7
−200%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+200%
12−14
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+188%
8−9
−188%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+200%
6−7
−200%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+220%
10−11
−220%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+181%
27−30
−181%
Hitman 3 21−24
+175%
8−9
−175%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+190%
21−24
−190%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+208%
12−14
−208%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+220%
10−11
−220%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+208%
12−14
−208%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+190%
10−11
−190%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+183%
24−27
−183%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+200%
6−7
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+188%
8−9
−188%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+200%
6−7
−200%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+181%
27−30
−181%
Hitman 3 21−24
+175%
8−9
−175%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+190%
21−24
−190%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+208%
12−14
−208%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+190%
10−11
−190%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+183%
24−27
−183%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+220%
10−11
−220%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+175%
8−9
−175%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+200%
6−7
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+200%
18−20
−200%
Hitman 3 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+188%
8−9
−188%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+200%
6−7
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+200%
24−27
−200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Hitman 3 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+194%
18−20
−194%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%

This is how GTX 660 Ti and Quadro P400 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 660 Ti is 181% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.48 4.26
Recency 16 August 2012 7 February 2017
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 30 Watt

GTX 660 Ti has a 169.5% higher aggregate performance score.

Quadro P400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P400 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 660 Ti is a desktop card while Quadro P400 is a 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 660 Ti
GeForce GTX 660 Ti
NVIDIA Quadro P400
Quadro P400

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.2 809 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 660 Ti on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 486 votes

Rate Quadro P400 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.