GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q vs Quadro P4000

Place in the ranking	189	248
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	17.45	69.15
Power efficiency	19.81	26.31
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GP104	TU116
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$815	$229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 296% 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 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. 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 P4000 30.21
+31.7%

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 22.93

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 P4000 11615
+31.8%

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q 8814

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	69 −13%	78 +13%
4K	40−45 +17.6%	34 −17.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	11.81 −302%	2.94 +302%
4K	20.38 −203%	6.74 +203%

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 302% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q has 203% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +40.5%	40−45 −40.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +37%	45−50 −37%
Elden Ring	100−110 +37.8%	70−75 −37.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +23.9%	70−75 −23.9%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +40.5%	40−45 −40.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +37%	45−50 −37%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +39.4%	95−100 −39.4%
Metro Exodus	75−80 −5.2%	81 +5.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 −46%	92 +46%
Valorant	120−130 +18.6%	102 −18.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +3.5%	85 −3.5%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +40.5%	40−45 −40.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +37%	45−50 −37%
Dota 2	100−110 +13.5%	89 −13.5%
Elden Ring	100−110 +37.8%	70−75 −37.8%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +37.1%	62 −37.1%
Fortnite	140−150 +22.2%	110−120 −22.2%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +39.4%	95−100 −39.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−105 +14.9%	87 −14.9%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +35.1%	57 −35.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +2.3%	172 −2.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +65.8%	38 −65.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +38.4%	70−75 −38.4%
Valorant	120−130 +92.1%	63 −92.1%
World of Tanks	270−280 +10.5%	240−250 −10.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +23.9%	70−75 −23.9%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +40.5%	40−45 −40.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +37%	45−50 −37%
Dota 2	100−110 +17.4%	86 −17.4%
Far Cry 5	85−90 −37.6%	117 +37.6%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +39.4%	95−100 −39.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +18.9%	140−150 −18.9%
Valorant	120−130 +30.1%	93 −30.1%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	50−55 +43.2%	35−40 −43.2%
Elden Ring	55−60 +43.6%	35−40 −43.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	50−55 +39.5%	35−40 −39.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0.6%	170−180 −0.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +33.3%	21−24 −33.3%
World of Tanks	190−200 +28.1%	150−160 −28.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +28.3%	45−50 −28.3%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +42.1%	18−20 −42.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +42.1%	18−20 −42.1%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +43.1%	65−70 −43.1%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +38.3%	60−65 −38.3%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +30.8%	50−55 −30.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +42.4%	30−35 −42.4%
Valorant	85−90 +41%	60−65 −41%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +45%	20−22 −45%
Dota 2	55−60 +41%	35−40 −41%
Elden Ring	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +41%	35−40 −41%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +41.2%	16−18 −41.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 +36.2%	65−70 −36.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +35.7%	14−16 −35.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +41%	35−40 −41%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +43.5%	21−24 −43.5%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +45%	20−22 −45%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Dota 2	55−60 +41%	35−40 −41%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +36.7%	30−33 −36.7%
Fortnite	35−40 +39.3%	27−30 −39.3%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +37.1%	35−40 −37.1%
Valorant	40−45 +48.3%	27−30 −48.3%

This is how Quadro P4000 and GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 13% faster in 1080p
Quadro P4000 is 18% faster in 4K

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

in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 92% faster.
in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is 46% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P4000 is ahead in 60 tests (95%)
GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 3 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	30.21	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