Quadro FX 2800M vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

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

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 80 Watt
28.92
+2578%

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile outperforms FX 2800M by a whopping 2578% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1941087
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation100.00no data
Power efficiency24.790.99
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameTU116G92
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date23 April 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 cores153696
Core clock speed1455 MHz600 MHz
Boost clock speed1590 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,600 million754 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate152.628.80
Floating-point processing power4.884 TFLOPS0.288 TFLOPS
ROPs4816
TMUs9648

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 sizemedium sizedlarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)

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 speed1500 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

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 Ti Mobile 28.92
+2578%
FX 2800M 1.08

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 Ti Mobile 49309
+753%
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 HD88
+184%
31
−184%
1440p58
+2800%
2−3
−2800%
4K32
+3100%
1−2
−3100%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.60no data
1440p3.95no data
4K7.16no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 86
+2767%
3−4
−2767%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 80
+1500%
5−6
−1500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 66
+3200%
2−3
−3200%
Battlefield 5 129
+3125%
4−5
−3125%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 82
+1950%
4−5
−1950%
Cyberpunk 2077 68
+2167%
3−4
−2167%
Far Cry 5 98
+9700%
1−2
−9700%
Far Cry New Dawn 102
+5000%
2−3
−5000%
Forza Horizon 4 304 0−1
Hitman 3 77
+1440%
5−6
−1440%
Horizon Zero Dawn 209
+1508%
12−14
−1508%
Metro Exodus 126
+3050%
4−5
−3050%
Red Dead Redemption 2 99
+9800%
1−2
−9800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 155
+2114%
7−8
−2114%
Watch Dogs: Legion 225
+603%
30−35
−603%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 125
+2400%
5−6
−2400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 49
+4800%
1−2
−4800%
Battlefield 5 109
+2625%
4−5
−2625%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 73
+1725%
4−5
−1725%
Cyberpunk 2077 54
+1700%
3−4
−1700%
Far Cry 5 77
+7600%
1−2
−7600%
Far Cry New Dawn 70
+3400%
2−3
−3400%
Forza Horizon 4 256 0−1
Hitman 3 74
+1380%
5−6
−1380%
Horizon Zero Dawn 207
+1492%
12−14
−1492%
Metro Exodus 104
+3367%
3−4
−3367%
Red Dead Redemption 2 83
+8200%
1−2
−8200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 118
+1586%
7−8
−1586%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+409%
10−12
−409%
Watch Dogs: Legion 214
+569%
30−35
−569%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 53
+960%
5−6
−960%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 42
+4100%
1−2
−4100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 53
+1225%
4−5
−1225%
Cyberpunk 2077 52
+1633%
3−4
−1633%
Far Cry 5 57
+5600%
1−2
−5600%
Forza Horizon 4 99 0−1
Hitman 3 63
+1160%
5−6
−1160%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90
+592%
12−14
−592%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 101
+1343%
7−8
−1343%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55
+400%
10−12
−400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 33
+3.1%
30−35
−3.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 80
+7900%
1−2
−7900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 66
+6500%
1−2
−6500%
Far Cry New Dawn 46
+4500%
1−2
−4500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 36
+3500%
1−2
−3500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 32
+3100%
1−2
−3100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 38
+3700%
1−2
−3700%
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Far Cry 5 36
+3500%
1−2
−3500%
Forza Horizon 4 182
+2933%
6−7
−2933%
Hitman 3 41
+486%
7−8
−486%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65
+1525%
4−5
−1525%
Metro Exodus 60
+2900%
2−3
−2900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60
+2800%
2−3
−2800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 203
+3960%
5−6
−3960%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 56
+1300%
4−5
−1300%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 31
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Far Cry New Dawn 25 0−1
Hitman 3 25 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 76
+3700%
2−3
−3700%
Metro Exodus 41
+4000%
1−2
−4000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+3400%
1−2
−3400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 22
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 19 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10 0−1
Far Cry 5 18 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+3500%
1−2
−3500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+3200%
1−2
−3200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 13 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27
+1250%
2−3
−1250%

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

  • GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 184% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 2800% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 3100% faster in 4K

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

  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 9800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 1660 Ti Mobile surpassed FX 2800M in all 43 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 28.92 1.08
Recency 23 April 2019 1 December 2009
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 75 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has a 2577.8% 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 6.7% lower power consumption.

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

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is a notebook graphics 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 Ti Mobile
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2800M
Quadro FX 2800M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 1582 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile 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.