GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs Quadro P4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 with GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, including specs and performance data.
P4000 outperforms GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q by a substantial 31% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 198 | 256 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.66 | 68.97 |
| Power efficiency | 19.67 | 26.21 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | TU116 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (8 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $815 | $229 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 270% better value for money than Quadro P4000.
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 | 1792 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1202 MHz | 1140 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 1335 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 165.8 | 128.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.304 TFLOPS | 4.101 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 112 | 96 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1901 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 288.0 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 Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 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.
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.
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 | 68
−16.2%
| 79
+16.2%
|
| 4K | 40−45
+21.2%
| 33
−21.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 11.99
−313%
| 2.90
+313%
|
| 4K | 20.38
−194%
| 6.94
+194%
|
- GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 313% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 194% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 80−85
+37.9%
|
55−60
−37.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+41.5%
|
40−45
−41.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+34.8%
|
45−50
−34.8%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 80−85
+37.9%
|
55−60
−37.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+28.9%
|
83
−28.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+41.5%
|
40−45
−41.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+34.8%
|
45−50
−34.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+33.3%
|
69
−33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+43.5%
|
92
−43.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+27.9%
|
85−90
−27.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+32.8%
|
60−65
−32.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+34.9%
|
80−85
−34.9%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+18.2%
|
150−160
−18.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 80−85
+37.9%
|
55−60
−37.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+37.2%
|
78
−37.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+41.5%
|
40−45
−41.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+10.2%
|
240−250
−10.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+34.8%
|
45−50
−34.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+39.4%
|
94
−39.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+39.4%
|
66
−39.4%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+46.7%
|
90
−46.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+27.9%
|
85−90
−27.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+32.8%
|
60−65
−32.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−105
+14.9%
|
87
−14.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+33.3%
|
48
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+34.9%
|
80−85
−34.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 77
−19.5%
|
92
+19.5%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+18.2%
|
150−160
−18.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+46.6%
|
73
−46.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+41.5%
|
40−45
−41.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+34.8%
|
45−50
−34.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+52.3%
|
86
−52.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+48.4%
|
62
−48.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+27.9%
|
85−90
−27.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+32.8%
|
60−65
−32.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+34.9%
|
80−85
−34.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
−24.4%
|
51
+24.4%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+95.7%
|
93
−95.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 130−140
+67.1%
|
79
−67.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+27.5%
|
150−160
−27.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+39.5%
|
35−40
−39.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+39.3%
|
27−30
−39.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0.6%
|
170−180
−0.6%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+14.5%
|
190−200
−14.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+26.2%
|
60−65
−26.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+34.7%
|
45−50
−34.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+36.4%
|
55−60
−36.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+28.2%
|
35−40
−28.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+40%
|
35−40
−40%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65−70
+38%
|
50−55
−38%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+29.4%
|
16−18
−29.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+41%
|
35−40
−41%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+38.7%
|
31
−38.7%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+34.7%
|
120−130
−34.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+15.8%
|
38
−15.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+23.6%
|
70−75
−23.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30
−13.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+31.6%
|
35−40
−31.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+40%
|
20−22
−40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+45.5%
|
21−24
−45.5%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+39.1%
|
21−24
−39.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how Quadro P4000 and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 16% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P4000 is 21% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 96% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 24% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P4000 is ahead in 64 tests (96%)
- GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (1%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.12 | 22.93 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 60 Watt |
Quadro P4000 has a 31.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
