GeForce GTX 1660 vs Quadro 400

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 400 with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 400
2011
512 MB DDR3, 32 Watt
0.38

GTX 1660 outperforms 400 by a whopping 7882% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1267188
Place by popularitynot in top-10040
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0146.96
Power efficiency0.8217.40
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGT216TU116
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date5 April 2011 (13 years ago)14 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$169 $219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 has 469500% better value for money than Quadro 400.

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 cores481408
Core clock speed450 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1785 MHz
Number of transistors486 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)32 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate7.200157.1
Floating-point processing power0.108 TFLOPS5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs848
TMUs1688

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length163 mm229 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount512 MB6 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed770 MHz2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.32 GB/s192.1 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA1.27.5

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 400 0.38
GTX 1660 30.33
+7882%

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 400 148
GTX 1660 11662
+7780%

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 HD1−2
−8300%
84
+8300%
1440p0−151
4K-0−127

Cost per frame, $

1080p169.00
−6382%
2.61
+6382%
1440pno data4.29
4Kno data8.11
  • GTX 1660 has 6382% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 72
+0%
72
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 71
+0%
71
+0%
Elden Ring 84
+0%
84
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 56
+0%
56
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 55
+0%
55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 132
+0%
132
+0%
Metro Exodus 95
+0%
95
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 112
+0%
112
+0%
Valorant 138
+0%
138
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 48
+0%
48
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45
+0%
45
+0%
Dota 2 150
+0%
150
+0%
Elden Ring 90
+0%
90
+0%
Far Cry 5 145
+0%
145
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110
+0%
110
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 115
+0%
115
+0%
Metro Exodus 66
+0%
66
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 216
+0%
216
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Valorant 65
+0%
65
+0%
World of Tanks 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 43
+0%
43
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 38
+0%
38
+0%
Dota 2 197
+0%
197
+0%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 95
+0%
95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 115
+0%
115
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 52
+0%
52
+0%
Elden Ring 47
+0%
47
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 52
+0%
52
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 129
+0%
129
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 25
+0%
25
+0%
World of Tanks 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 26
+0%
26
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 23
+0%
23
+0%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 67
+0%
67
+0%
Metro Exodus 59
+0%
59
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 72
+0%
72
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16
+0%
16
+0%
Dota 2 49
+0%
49
+0%
Elden Ring 21
+0%
21
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+0%
49
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 81
+0%
81
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 49
+0%
49
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Dota 2 87
+0%
87
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 36
+0%
36
+0%
Valorant 38
+0%
38
+0%

This is how Quadro 400 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 is 8300% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.38 30.33
Recency 5 April 2011 14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 32 Watt 120 Watt

Quadro 400 has 275% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 7881.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 1100% 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 400 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 400 is a workstation graphics 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.

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 Quadro 400
Quadro 400
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
GeForce GTX 1660

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.


2.8 13 votes

Rate Quadro 400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 5471 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 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.