GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition vs Quadro 3000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 3000M with GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.
3000M outperforms 660M Mac Edition by an impressive 64% 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 | 906 | 1046 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.11 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.49 | 2.28 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (15 years ago) | 1 April 2013 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $398.96 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 240 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 950 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 1.27 billion |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 18.00 | 30.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.432 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 625 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 80 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 | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
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 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.175 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 3.0 |
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 | 51
+70%
| 30−35 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.82 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4 |
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4 |
| Fortnite | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4 |
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+74.1%
|
27−30 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4 |
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+78.6%
|
14−16 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4 |
| Fortnite | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4 |
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+78.6%
|
14−16 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+64.3%
|
14−16 |
| Valorant | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10 |
| Valorant | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8 |
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2 |
This is how Quadro 3000M and GTX 660M Mac Edition compete in popular games:
- Quadro 3000M is 70% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.41 | 1.47 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 1 April 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
Quadro 3000M has a 64% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 660M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 30% more advanced lithography process, and 33% lower power consumption.
The Quadro 3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
