GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs Quadro M3000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M3000M with GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

M3000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
14.63

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q outperforms M3000M by an impressive 56% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking359246
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data69.01
Power efficiency13.3726.13
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGM204TU116
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$229

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 cores1,0241536
Core clock speed1050 MHz1140 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1335 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate67.20128.2
Floating-point processing power2.15 TFLOPS4.101 TFLOPS
ROPs3248
TMUs6496

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s288.0 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 outputsNo outputs
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 Vision Pro+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
Vulkan+1.2.131
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.

M3000M 14.63
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.87
+56.3%

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.

M3000M 5636
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 8814
+56.4%

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.

M3000M 8289
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 17439
+110%

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.

M3000M 27405
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 31845
+16.2%

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.

M3000M 6537
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 13355
+104%

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.

M3000M 44603
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 63086
+41.4%

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 HD61
−27.9%
78
+27.9%
4K27
−14.8%
31
+14.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.94
4Kno data7.39

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−68.2%
35−40
+68.2%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
−69.7%
56
+69.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
−69.6%
35−40
+69.6%
Battlefield 5 45−50
−91.3%
88
+91.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
−141%
70
+141%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−68.2%
35−40
+68.2%
Far Cry 5 30−35
−179%
92
+179%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
−53.8%
60−65
+53.8%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
−47.3%
130−140
+47.3%
Hitman 3 27−30
−66.7%
45−50
+66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
−46.6%
100−110
+46.6%
Metro Exodus 45−50
−150%
120
+150%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−136%
92
+136%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
−63.8%
75−80
+63.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
−28.9%
95−100
+28.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
−51.5%
50−55
+51.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
−69.6%
35−40
+69.6%
Battlefield 5 45−50
−82.6%
84
+82.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
−128%
66
+128%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−68.2%
35−40
+68.2%
Far Cry 5 30−35
−133%
77
+133%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
−53.8%
60−65
+53.8%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
−47.3%
130−140
+47.3%
Hitman 3 27−30
−66.7%
45−50
+66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
−46.6%
100−110
+46.6%
Metro Exodus 45−50
−97.9%
95
+97.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−89.7%
74
+89.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
−63.8%
75−80
+63.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 90
+80%
50−55
−80%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
−28.9%
95−100
+28.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
−27.3%
42
+27.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
−69.6%
35−40
+69.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
−72.4%
50
+72.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−68.2%
35−40
+68.2%
Far Cry 5 30−35
−63.6%
54
+63.6%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
−47.3%
130−140
+47.3%
Hitman 3 27−30
−66.7%
45−50
+66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
−8.2%
79
+8.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
−63.8%
75−80
+63.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
−132%
51
+132%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
−28.9%
95−100
+28.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−84.6%
72
+84.6%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
−53.6%
40−45
+53.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
−59.1%
35−40
+59.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
−71.4%
24−27
+71.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
−100%
21−24
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
−73.3%
24−27
+73.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−100%
14−16
+100%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−52.9%
24−27
+52.9%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−75.7%
130−140
+75.7%
Hitman 3 16−18
−58.8%
27−30
+58.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
−62.1%
45−50
+62.1%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−72%
40−45
+72%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
−96%
45−50
+96%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−80%
27−30
+80%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
−48.9%
130−140
+48.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−65.2%
35−40
+65.2%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
−57.1%
21−24
+57.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
−63.6%
18−20
+63.6%
Hitman 3 10−11
−80%
18−20
+80%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
−66.2%
110−120
+66.2%
Metro Exodus 14−16
−78.6%
24−27
+78.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
−121%
31
+121%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
−71.4%
12−14
+71.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−85.7%
12−14
+85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−62.5%
12−14
+62.5%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−63.2%
30−35
+63.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−92.9%
27−30
+92.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−53.8%
20−22
+53.8%

This is how M3000M and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 28% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 15% faster in 4K

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the M3000M is 80% faster.
  • in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 179% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • M3000M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 71 test (99%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.63 22.87
Recency 18 August 2015 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 60 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has a 56.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M3000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is a mobile 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 Quadro M3000M
Quadro M3000M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q

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.


3.8 358 votes

Rate Quadro M3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 538 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 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.