Quadro 2000 vs GeForce GTX 660 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 660 Ti with Quadro 2000, including specs and performance data.
660 Ti outperforms 2000 by a whopping 368% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 485 | 916 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.82 | 0.06 |
| Power efficiency | 5.46 | 2.82 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GF106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 16 August 2012 (13 years ago) | 24 December 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 660 Ti has 4600% better value for money than Quadro 2000.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1344 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 62 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 109.8 | 20.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.634 TFLOPS | 0.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 16 |
| TMUs | 112 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 112 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 384 KB | 256 KB |
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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 178 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192-bit GDDR5 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | 650 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.2 GB/s | 41.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.1 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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 | 77
+381%
| 16−18
−381%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.88
+864%
| 37.44
−864%
|
- GTX 660 Ti has 864% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+383%
|
12−14
−383%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+370%
|
10−11
−370%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+383%
|
12−14
−383%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+425%
|
12−14
−425%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+411%
|
9−10
−411%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+444%
|
18−20
−444%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+370%
|
10−11
−370%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+383%
|
12−14
−383%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 192
+380%
|
40−45
−380%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+369%
|
16−18
−369%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+425%
|
12−14
−425%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+411%
|
9−10
−411%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+400%
|
8−9
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+444%
|
18−20
−444%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+370%
|
10−11
−370%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+369%
|
16−18
−369%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+411%
|
9−10
−411%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+444%
|
18−20
−444%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 60−65
+425%
|
12−14
−425%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+406%
|
16−18
−406%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+430%
|
10−11
−430%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+410%
|
21−24
−410%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+390%
|
10−11
−390%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
This is how GTX 660 Ti and Quadro 2000 compete in popular games:
- GTX 660 Ti is 381% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.58 | 2.26 |
| Recency | 16 August 2012 | 24 December 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 62 Watt |
GTX 660 Ti has a 368% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro 2000, on the other hand, has 142% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 660 Ti is a desktop graphics card while Quadro 2000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
