Quadro FX 1800 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Super

Place in the ranking	162	1102
Place by popularity	8	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	57.48	0.03
Power efficiency	18.14	1.20
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	TU116	G94
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	29 October 2019 (5 years ago)	30 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$229	$489

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Super has 191500% better value for money than FX 1800.

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	1408	64
Core clock speed	1530 MHz	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	1785 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,600 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	125 Watt	59 Watt
Texture fill rate	157.1	17.60
Floating-point processing power	5.027 TFLOPS	0.176 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	12
TMUs	88	32

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 2.0 x16
Length	229 mm	198 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-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	GDDR6	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	768 MB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	336.0 GB/s	38.4 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	-
HDCP	+	-
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

NVENC	+	no data
Ansel	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.5	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	7.5	1.1

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.

GTX 1660 Super 33.07
+3111%

FX 1800 1.03

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.

GTX 1660 Super 12749
+3111%

FX 1800 397

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	92 +4500%	2−3 −4500%
1440p	55 +5400%	1−2 −5400%
4K	29	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.49	244.50
1440p	4.16	489.00
4K	7.90	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

76
+3700%

2−3

−3700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	88 +4300%	2−3 −4300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	66 +3200%	2−3 −3200%
Battlefield 5	100−110 +3467%	3−4 −3467%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	80 +3900%	2−3 −3900%
Cyberpunk 2077	63 +6200%	1−2 −6200%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +3600%	2−3 −3600%
Far Cry New Dawn	121 +3933%	3−4 −3933%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +3400%	5−6 −3400%
Hitman 3	77 +3750%	2−3 −3750%
Horizon Zero Dawn	321 +3467%	9−10 −3467%
Metro Exodus	144 +3500%	4−5 −3500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	80 +3900%	2−3 −3900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110−120 +3800%	3−4 −3800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	217 +3517%	6−7 −3517%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	135 +3275%	4−5 −3275%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	48 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Battlefield 5	100−110 +3467%	3−4 −3467%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	72 +3500%	2−3 −3500%
Cyberpunk 2077	52 +5100%	1−2 −5100%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +3600%	2−3 −3600%
Far Cry New Dawn	86 +4200%	2−3 −4200%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +3400%	5−6 −3400%
Hitman 3	75 +3650%	2−3 −3650%
Horizon Zero Dawn	290 +3122%	9−10 −3122%
Metro Exodus	118 +3833%	3−4 −3833%
Red Dead Redemption 2	89 +4350%	2−3 −4350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	129 +3125%	4−5 −3125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	65−70 +3350%	2−3 −3350%
Watch Dogs: Legion	208 +3367%	6−7 −3367%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	51 +5000%	1−2 −5000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	44 +4300%	1−2 −4300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	55 +5400%	1−2 −5400%
Cyberpunk 2077	49 +4800%	1−2 −4800%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +3600%	2−3 −3600%
Forza Horizon 4	107 +3467%	3−4 −3467%
Hitman 3	65 +3150%	2−3 −3150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	99 +3200%	3−4 −3200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	112 +3633%	3−4 −3633%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	61 +6000%	1−2 −6000%
Watch Dogs: Legion	31	0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

57
+5600%

1−2

−5600%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +6200%	1−2 −6200%
Far Cry New Dawn	57 +5600%	1−2 −5600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40 +3900%	1−2 −3900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	34 +3300%	1−2 −3300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	38 +3700%	1−2 −3700%
Cyberpunk 2077	26	0−1
Far Cry 5	35−40 +3700%	1−2 −3700%
Forza Horizon 4	190−200 +3700%	5−6 −3700%
Hitman 3	43 +4200%	1−2 −4200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	71 +3450%	2−3 −3450%
Metro Exodus	67 +3250%	2−3 −3250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	80 +3900%	2−3 −3900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +4400%	1−2 −4400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	196 +3167%	6−7 −3167%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

56
+5500%

1−2

−5500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +3200%	1−2 −3200%
Far Cry New Dawn	31	0−1
Hitman 3	25	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	66 +3200%	2−3 −3200%
Metro Exodus	44 +4300%	1−2 −4300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40 +3900%	1−2 −3900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	19	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	11	0−1
Far Cry 5	18−20	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	54 +5300%	1−2 −5300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	44 +4300%	1−2 −4300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

This is how GTX 1660 Super and FX 1800 compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Super is 4500% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 Super is 5400% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.07	1.03
Recency	29 October 2019	30 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	768 MB
Chip lithography	12 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	125 Watt	59 Watt

GTX 1660 Super has a 3110.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 441.7% more advanced lithography process.

FX 1800, on the other hand, has 111.9% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1800 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Super is a desktop card while Quadro FX 1800 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.