GeForce GTX 1660 vs FirePro D700
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro D700 with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 outperforms FirePro D700 by a whopping 118% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 350 | 170 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 47 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.44 | 24.98 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | Turing TU116 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 January 2014 (10 years ago) | 14 March 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $219 |
| Current price | $413 | $252 (1.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1660 has 359% better value for money than FirePro D700.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 274 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 108.8 | 157.1 |
| Floating-point performance | 3,482 gflops | no data |
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 | 279 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | 6 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5480 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 263.0 GB/s | 192.1 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | 6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDI | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | no data | 7.5 |
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 | 35−40
−140%
| 84
+140%
|
| 1440p | 21−24
−138%
| 50
+138%
|
| 4K | 12−14
−125%
| 27
+125%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
−137%
|
71
+137%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
−133%
|
55−60
+133%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27−30
−119%
|
59
+119%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−120%
|
95−100
+120%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−33
−143%
|
73
+143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−142%
|
58
+142%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
−127%
|
65−70
+127%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
−120%
|
75−80
+120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−120%
|
132
+120%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−33
−130%
|
69
+130%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 75−80
−129%
|
172
+129%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
−122%
|
144
+122%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
−124%
|
112
+124%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 60−65
−120%
|
132
+120%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−123%
|
78
+123%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
−133%
|
55−60
+133%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 18−20
−133%
|
42
+133%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−120%
|
95−100
+120%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−33
−123%
|
67
+123%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−124%
|
47
+124%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
−127%
|
65−70
+127%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
−120%
|
75−80
+120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−127%
|
120−130
+127%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
−133%
|
56
+133%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 130−140
−121%
|
287
+121%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
−122%
|
100
+122%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
−125%
|
90
+125%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 50−55
−120%
|
110
+120%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
−127%
|
102
+127%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 95−100
−125%
|
214
+125%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
−133%
|
55−60
+133%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
−131%
|
37
+131%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
−133%
|
49
+133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−122%
|
40
+122%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
−127%
|
65−70
+127%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−145%
|
98
+145%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
−133%
|
93
+133%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40−45
−138%
|
95
+138%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−138%
|
57
+138%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−142%
|
29
+142%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
−131%
|
81
+131%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−138%
|
55−60
+138%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
−120%
|
77
+120%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
−129%
|
30−35
+129%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
−125%
|
27
+125%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
−143%
|
51
+143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−140%
|
24
+140%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−119%
|
59
+119%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−153%
|
76
+153%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
−144%
|
39
+144%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−33
−123%
|
67
+123%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−119%
|
59
+119%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−33
−123%
|
67
+123%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−122%
|
40−45
+122%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9
−138%
|
19
+138%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−121%
|
53
+121%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
−140%
|
24−27
+140%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
−133%
|
21
+133%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−125%
|
35−40
+125%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−140%
|
24
+140%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−119%
|
35
+119%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
−138%
|
18−20
+138%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7
−150%
|
15
+150%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−143%
|
17
+143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−143%
|
16−18
+143%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−138%
|
50
+138%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−138%
|
38
+138%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−121%
|
31
+121%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
−140%
|
12
+140%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−160%
|
26
+160%
|
This is how FirePro D700 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is 140% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 is 138% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 is 125% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.87 | 30.27 |
| Recency | 18 January 2014 | 14 March 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 274 Watt | 120 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro D700 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro D700 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
