GeForce GTX 1660 vs Quadro M2200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2200 with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M2200
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
11.03

GTX 1660 outperforms M2200 by a whopping 175% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking424186
Place by popularitynot in top-10038
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data48.16
Power efficiency13.7417.30
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGM206TU116
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date11 January 2017 (7 years ago)14 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores10241408
Core clock speed695 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speed1036 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate66.30157.1
Floating-point processing power2.122 TFLOPS5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs3248
TMUs6488

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data2-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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1377 MHz2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth88 GB/s192.1 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
3D Stereo+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA5.27.5

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 M2200 11.03
GTX 1660 30.29
+175%

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 M2200 4250
GTX 1660 11668
+175%

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 M2200 7372
GTX 1660 21064
+186%

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 M2200 24622
GTX 1660 71229
+189%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Quadro M2200 5850
GTX 1660 14164
+142%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Quadro M2200 37796
GTX 1660 81755
+116%

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 M2200 13299
GTX 1660 57967
+336%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Quadro M2200 289176
GTX 1660 570753
+97.4%

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.

Quadro M2200 15604
GTX 1660 56067
+259%

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.

Quadro M2200 12812
GTX 1660 60172
+370%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

Quadro M2200 47
GTX 1660 120
+156%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

Quadro M2200 86
+74.8%
GTX 1660 49

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

Quadro M2200 58
+576%
GTX 1660 9

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

Quadro M2200 72
+21%
GTX 1660 60

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

Quadro M2200 69
+69.6%
GTX 1660 40

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

Quadro M2200 25
GTX 1660 27
+10.2%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

Quadro M2200 33
GTX 1660 63
+92.7%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

Quadro M2200 5
GTX 1660 6
+11.5%

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 HD44
−88.6%
83
+88.6%
1440p16−18
−206%
49
+206%
4K14
−85.7%
26
+85.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.64
1440pno data4.47
4Kno data8.42

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−318%
71
+318%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
−150%
65−70
+150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
−247%
59
+247%
Battlefield 5 35−40
−183%
95−100
+183%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−232%
73
+232%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−241%
58
+241%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−162%
65−70
+162%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
−148%
75−80
+148%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−126%
160−170
+126%
Hitman 3 21−24
−229%
69
+229%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
−419%
306
+419%
Metro Exodus 35−40
−300%
144
+300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
−261%
112
+261%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−192%
100−110
+192%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−244%
227
+244%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
−373%
123
+373%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
−147%
42
+147%
Battlefield 5 35−40
−183%
95−100
+183%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−205%
67
+205%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−176%
47
+176%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−162%
65−70
+162%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
−148%
75−80
+148%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−126%
160−170
+126%
Hitman 3 21−24
−219%
67
+219%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
−386%
287
+386%
Metro Exodus 35−40
−214%
113
+214%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
−155%
79
+155%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−206%
110
+206%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
−121%
60−65
+121%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−224%
214
+224%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
−150%
65−70
+150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
−118%
37
+118%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−123%
49
+123%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−135%
40
+135%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−162%
65−70
+162%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−34.2%
98
+34.2%
Hitman 3 21−24
−181%
59
+181%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
−57.6%
93
+57.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−164%
95
+164%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
−185%
57
+185%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+128%
29
−128%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
−161%
81
+161%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
−171%
55−60
+171%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
−171%
45−50
+171%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
−191%
30−35
+191%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
−286%
27
+286%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
−209%
34
+209%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−380%
24
+380%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−169%
35−40
+169%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−241%
170−180
+241%
Hitman 3 14−16
−179%
39
+179%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−191%
67
+191%
Metro Exodus 16−18
−247%
59
+247%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−319%
67
+319%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−264%
40−45
+264%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−171%
187
+171%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
−194%
53
+194%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
−200%
30−33
+200%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−200%
24−27
+200%
Hitman 3 7−8
−200%
21
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−26%
63
+26%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−389%
44
+389%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
−169%
35
+169%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−217%
18−20
+217%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−200%
15
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−240%
17
+240%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−900%
10
+900%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−183%
16−18
+183%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−257%
50
+257%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−350%
36
+350%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
−200%
12
+200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−160%
26
+160%

This is how Quadro M2200 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 is 89% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 is 206% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 is 86% 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 M2200 is 128% faster.
  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 is 900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro M2200 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • GTX 1660 is ahead in 71 test (99%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.03 30.29
Recency 11 January 2017 14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 120 Watt

Quadro M2200 has 118.2% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 174.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 50% 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 M2200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2200 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.

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 M2200
Quadro M2200
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
GeForce GTX 1660

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.


3.7 376 votes

Rate Quadro M2200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 5335 votes

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.