GeForce GTX 1660 vs Quadro 2000M

Place in the ranking	888	186
Place by popularity	not in top-100	39
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.28	48.17
Power efficiency	2.52	17.30
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GF106	TU116
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	13 January 2011 (13 years ago)	14 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$46.56	$219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 has 17104% better value for money than Quadro 2000M.

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	192	1408
Core clock speed	550 MHz	1530 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	1,170 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	120 Watt
Texture fill rate	17.60	157.1
Floating-point processing power	0.4224 TFLOPS	5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	48
TMUs	32	88

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	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 8-pin

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	DDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.8 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	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	2.1	7.5

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.

Quadro 2000M 2.02

GTX 1660 30.28
+1399%

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.

Quadro 2000M 778

GTX 1660 11669
+1400%

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.

Quadro 2000M 1261

GTX 1660 21064
+1570%

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.

Quadro 2000M 6634

GTX 1660 71229
+974%

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.

Quadro 2000M 3414

GTX 1660 57961
+1598%

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	37 −124%	83 +124%
1440p	3−4 −1533%	49 +1533%
4K	1−2 −2500%	26 +2500%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	1.26	2.64
1440p	15.52	4.47
4K	46.56	8.42

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−1675%

71
+1675%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −829%	65−70 +829%
Battlefield 5	1−2 −9800%	95−100 +9800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −1360%	73 +1360%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1350%	58 +1350%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −2167%	65−70 +2167%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −1440%	75−80 +1440%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −1963%	160−170 +1963%
Hitman 3	7−8 −886%	69 +886%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −1600%	306 +1600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −2700%	112 +2700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −950%	100−110 +950%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −549%	227 +549%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −1657%	123 +1657%
Battlefield 5	1−2 −9800%	95−100 +9800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −1240%	67 +1240%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1075%	47 +1075%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −2167%	65−70 +2167%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −1440%	75−80 +1440%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −1963%	160−170 +1963%
Hitman 3	7−8 −857%	67 +857%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −1494%	287 +1494%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −1875%	79 +1875%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −1000%	110 +1000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −433%	60−65 +433%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −511%	214 +511%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −829%	65−70 +829%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −880%	49 +880%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −900%	40 +900%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −2167%	65−70 +2167%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −1125%	98 +1125%
Hitman 3	7−8 −743%	59 +743%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −417%	93 +417%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −850%	95 +850%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −375%	57 +375%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +20.7%	29 −20.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−1925%

81
+1925%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −1800%	55−60 +1800%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −1433%	45−50 +1433%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −1500%	30−35 +1500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −3300%	34 +3300%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −2300%	24 +2300%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Hitman 3	7−8 −457%	39 +457%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 −1017%	67 +1017%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −3900%	40−45 +3900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12 −1600%	187 +1600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

−960%

53
+960%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−2300%

24−27
+2300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −850%	18−20 +850%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −1400%	15 +1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	17
Far Cry 5	1−2 −1600%	16−18 +1600%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	12

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−767%

26
+767%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	59 +0%	59 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	42 +0%	42 +0%
Metro Exodus	113 +0%	113 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	27 +0%	27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Metro Exodus	59 +0%	59 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	67 +0%	67 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Hitman 3	21 +0%	21 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	63 +0%	63 +0%
Metro Exodus	44 +0%	44 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35 +0%	35 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	10 +0%	10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	50 +0%	50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	36 +0%	36 +0%

This is how Quadro 2000M and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 is 124% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 is 1533% faster in 1440p
GTX 1660 is 2500% faster in 4K

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 2000M is 21% faster.
in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 is 9800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro 2000M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
GTX 1660 is ahead in 52 tests (74%)
there's a draw in 17 tests (24%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.02	30.28
Recency	13 January 2011	14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	120 Watt

Quadro 2000M has 118.2% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 1399% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 2000M 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.