Quadro FX 2800M vs GeForce GTX 1660 Super

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Super with Quadro FX 2800M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1660 Super
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 125 Watt
33.12
+2967%

GTX 1660 Super outperforms FX 2800M by a whopping 2967% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1641089
Place by popularity9not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation57.82no data
Power efficiency18.270.99
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameTU116G92
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date29 October 2019 (5 years ago)1 December 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores140896
Core clock speed1530 MHz600 MHz
Boost clock speed1785 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,600 million754 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate157.128.80
Floating-point processing power5.027 TFLOPS0.288 TFLOPS
ROPs4816
TMUs8848

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinno data

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 typeGDDR6GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount6 GB1 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth336.0 GB/s64 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
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.

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.54.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA7.5+

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 33.12
+2967%
FX 2800M 1.08

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 12729
+2960%
FX 2800M 416

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTX 1660 Super 76654
+1226%
FX 2800M 5783

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 HD91
+194%
31
−194%
1440p55
+5400%
1−2
−5400%
4K300−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.52no data
1440p4.16no data
4K7.63no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 90
+1186%
7−8
−1186%
Cyberpunk 2077 76
+1800%
4−5
−1800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 92 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 62
+786%
7−8
−786%
Cyberpunk 2077 59
+1375%
4−5
−1375%
Forza Horizon 4 163
+1938%
8−9
−1938%
Forza Horizon 5 96
+3100%
3−4
−3100%
Metro Exodus 108
+3500%
3−4
−3500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 80
+1233%
6−7
−1233%
Valorant 143
+3475%
4−5
−3475%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 52
+643%
7−8
−643%
Cyberpunk 2077 49
+1125%
4−5
−1125%
Dota 2 166 0−1
Far Cry 5 147
+1533%
9−10
−1533%
Fortnite 150−160
+3725%
4−5
−3725%
Forza Horizon 4 129
+1513%
8−9
−1513%
Forza Horizon 5 67
+3250%
2−3
−3250%
Grand Theft Auto V 133 0−1
Metro Exodus 73
+3550%
2−3
−3550%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 233
+1842%
12−14
−1842%
Red Dead Redemption 2 43
+617%
6−7
−617%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 110−120
+1783%
6−7
−1783%
Valorant 77
+3750%
2−3
−3750%
World of Tanks 270−280
+1008%
24−27
−1008%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 79 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 48
+586%
7−8
−586%
Cyberpunk 2077 44
+1000%
4−5
−1000%
Dota 2 211 0−1
Far Cry 5 85−90
+889%
9−10
−889%
Forza Horizon 4 112
+1300%
8−9
−1300%
Forza Horizon 5 67
+3250%
2−3
−3250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 180−190
+1450%
12−14
−1450%
Valorant 122
+3967%
3−4
−3967%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 62
+3000%
2−3
−3000%
Grand Theft Auto V 62
+3000%
2−3
−3000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 162
+2600%
6−7
−2600%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27 0−1
World of Tanks 210−220
+4140%
5−6
−4140%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 56
+5500%
1−2
−5500%
Counter-Strike 2 29
−6.9%
30−35
+6.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+733%
3−4
−733%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+2000%
5−6
−2000%
Forza Horizon 4 80
+3900%
2−3
−3900%
Forza Horizon 5 39 0−1
Metro Exodus 67
+3250%
2−3
−3250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+1250%
4−5
−1250%
Valorant 73
+1117%
6−7
−1117%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16 0−1
Dota 2 60
+300%
14−16
−300%
Grand Theft Auto V 60
+300%
14−16
−300%
Metro Exodus 22 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 101
+3267%
3−4
−3267%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60
+300%
14−16
−300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 29
+2800%
1−2
−2800%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+3200%
1−2
−3200%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+450%
2−3
−450%
Dota 2 95
+533%
14−16
−533%
Far Cry 5 45−50 0−1
Fortnite 40−45
+4300%
1−2
−4300%
Forza Horizon 4 44
+4300%
1−2
−4300%
Forza Horizon 5 22 0−1
Valorant 34
+3300%
1−2
−3300%

This is how GTX 1660 Super and FX 2800M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Super is 194% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Super is 5400% faster in 1440p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1660 Super is 4140% faster.
  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 2800M is 7% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Super is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
  • FX 2800M is ahead in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.12 1.08
Recency 29 October 2019 1 December 2009
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 75 Watt

GTX 1660 Super has a 2966.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 441.7% more advanced lithography process.

FX 2800M, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2800M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Super is a desktop card while Quadro FX 2800M is a mobile workstation one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Super
GeForce GTX 1660 Super
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2800M
Quadro FX 2800M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 20959 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 Super on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 6 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2800M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.