GeForce GTX 1660 vs Quadro K3000M

Place in the ranking	673	180
Place by popularity	not in top-100	51
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.51	48.93
Power efficiency	3.92	17.46
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GK104	TU116
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)	14 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$155	$219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 has 3140% 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 cores	576	1408
Core clock speed	654 MHz	1530 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	120 Watt
Texture fill rate	31.39	157.1
Floating-point processing power	0.7534 TFLOPS	5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	48
TMUs	48	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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-B (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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	700 MHz	2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth	89.6 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	-	+

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

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	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
CUDA	+	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.

K3000M 4.25

GTX 1660 30.26
+612%

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.

K3000M 1640

GTX 1660 11678
+612%

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.

K3000M 2427

GTX 1660 21064
+768%

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.

K3000M 11902

GTX 1660 71229
+498%

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.

K3000M 4211

GTX 1660 57884
+1275%

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:

900p	33 −597%	230−240 +597%
Full HD	32 −159%	83 +159%
1440p	7−8 −629%	51 +629%
4K	3−4 −833%	28 +833%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.84	2.64
1440p	22.14	4.29
4K	51.67	7.82

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

7−8

−914%

71
+914%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −442%	65−70 +442%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −1375%	59 +1375%
Battlefield 5	10−11 −890%	95−100 +890%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −711%	73 +711%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −729%	58 +729%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −656%	65−70 +656%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −542%	75−80 +542%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −535%	160−170 +535%
Hitman 3	10−11 −590%	69 +590%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −993%	306 +993%
Metro Exodus	9−10 −1500%	144 +1500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 −918%	112 +918%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −556%	100−110 +556%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −416%	227 +416%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −925%	123 +925%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −950%	42 +950%
Battlefield 5	10−11 −890%	95−100 +890%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −644%	67 +644%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −571%	47 +571%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −656%	65−70 +656%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −542%	75−80 +542%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −535%	160−170 +535%
Hitman 3	10−11 −570%	67 +570%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −925%	287 +925%
Metro Exodus	9−10 −1156%	113 +1156%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 −618%	79 +618%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −588%	110 +588%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −300%	60−65 +300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −386%	214 +386%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −442%	65−70 +442%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −825%	37 +825%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −444%	49 +444%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −471%	40 +471%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −656%	65−70 +656%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −277%	98 +277%
Hitman 3	10−11 −490%	59 +490%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −232%	93 +232%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −494%	95 +494%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −256%	57 +256%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +51.7%	29 −51.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

−636%

81
+636%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 −613%	55−60 +613%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 −667%	45−50 +667%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −700%	30−35 +700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −1033%	34 +1033%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1100%	24 +1100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −600%	35−40 +600%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −2800%	170−180 +2800%
Hitman 3	9−10 −333%	39 +333%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −570%	67 +570%
Metro Exodus	0−1	59
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 −619%	187 +619%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

−563%

53
+563%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −700%	24−27 +700%
Hitman 3	0−1	21
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −6200%	63 +6200%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −4300%	44 +4300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −533%	18−20 +533%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −650%	15 +650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −750%	17 +750%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	10
Far Cry 5	2−3 −750%	16−18 +750%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −1567%	50 +1567%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −1100%	12 +1100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

−420%

26
+420%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	27 +0%	27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	67 +0%	67 +0%

4K
High Preset

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

+0%

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

GTX 1660 is 597% faster in 900p
GTX 1660 is 159% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 is 629% faster in 1440p
GTX 1660 is 833% 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 K3000M is 52% faster.
in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1660 is 6200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

K3000M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
GTX 1660 is ahead in 64 tests (93%)
there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.25	30.26
Recency	1 June 2012	14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	120 Watt

K3000M has 60% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 612% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

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

Be aware that Quadro K3000M 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.