GeForce GTX 1660 Ti vs Quadro P6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P6000 with GeForce GTX 1660 Ti, including specs and performance data.
P6000 outperforms 1660 Ti by a significant 23% 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 | 147 | 216 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 33 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.72 | 27.36 |
| Power efficiency | 11.44 | 19.46 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GP102 | TU116 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 October 2016 (9 years ago) | 22 February 2019 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $5,999 | $279 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1660 Ti has 1491% better value for money than Quadro P6000.
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 | 3840 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1506 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1645 MHz | 1770 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11,800 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 394.8 | 169.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | 12.63 TFLOPS | 5.437 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 48 |
| TMUs | 240 | 96 |
| L1 Cache | 1.4 MB | 1.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 1536 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 2" (5.1 cm) | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |
| 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 | 384 Bit | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 24 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1127 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 432 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync II | no data |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| ECC (Error Correcting Code) | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API and SDK support
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 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 7.5 |
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.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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 | 120−130
+15.4%
| 104
−15.4%
|
| 1440p | 70−75
+18.6%
| 59
−18.6%
|
| 4K | 45−50
+15.4%
| 39
−15.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 49.99
−1763%
| 2.68
+1763%
|
| 1440p | 85.70
−1712%
| 4.73
+1712%
|
| 4K | 133.31
−1763%
| 7.15
+1763%
|
- GTX 1660 Ti has 1763% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti has 1712% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti has 1763% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+0%
|
78
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 247
+0%
|
247
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 131
+0%
|
131
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200
+0%
|
200
+0%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 181
+0%
|
181
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 143
+0%
|
143
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 119
+0%
|
119
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150
+0%
|
150
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
+0%
|
116
+0%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 168
+0%
|
168
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Valorant | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
This is how Quadro P6000 and GTX 1660 Ti compete in popular games:
- Quadro P6000 is 15% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P6000 is 19% faster in 1440p
- Quadro P6000 is 15% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 36.96 | 30.17 |
| Recency | 1 October 2016 | 22 February 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 24 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 120 Watt |
Quadro P6000 has a 23% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1660 Ti, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 33% more advanced lithography process, and 108% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P6000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
