Quadro FX 580 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile with Quadro FX 580, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile outperforms FX 580 by a whopping 6331% 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 | 218 | 1274 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 100.00 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 24.20 | 0.75 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | G96C |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (6 years ago) | 9 April 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 999900% better value for money than FX 580.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1536 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 1455 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 152.6 | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.884 TFLOPS | 0.072 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 8 |
| TMUs | 96 | 16 |
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 size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 198 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 25.6 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
API and SDK 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 |
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 | 88
+8700%
| 1−2
−8700%
|
| 1440p | 58 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 35 | 0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.60
+7547%
| 199.00
−7547%
|
| 1440p | 3.95 | no data |
| 4K | 6.54 | no data |
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 7547% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 147
+7250%
|
2−3
−7250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 86
+8500%
|
1−2
−8500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 74
+7300%
|
1−2
−7300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 111
+11000%
|
1−2
−11000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 133
+6550%
|
2−3
−6550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 68
+6700%
|
1−2
−6700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+9200%
|
1−2
−9200%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+12700%
|
1−2
−12700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+6600%
|
2−3
−6600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100
+9900%
|
1−2
−9900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 62 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+10500%
|
1−2
−10500%
|
| Valorant | 209
+6867%
|
3−4
−6867%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 103
+10200%
|
1−2
−10200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 101
+10000%
|
1−2
−10000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+6600%
|
4−5
−6600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 121
+12000%
|
1−2
−12000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+8800%
|
1−2
−8800%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+12700%
|
1−2
−12700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 125
+12400%
|
1−2
−12400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90
+8900%
|
1−2
−8900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+10400%
|
1−2
−10400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 48 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 54 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+10500%
|
1−2
−10500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 103
+10200%
|
1−2
−10200%
|
| Valorant | 207
+6800%
|
3−4
−6800%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 94
+9300%
|
1−2
−9300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 116
+11500%
|
1−2
−11500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 83
+8200%
|
1−2
−8200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 99
+9800%
|
1−2
−9800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 109
+10800%
|
1−2
−10800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 125
+12400%
|
1−2
−12400%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 107
+10600%
|
1−2
−10600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+9300%
|
2−3
−9300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 30 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+8650%
|
2−3
−8650%
|
| Valorant | 197
+6467%
|
3−4
−6467%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 69
+6800%
|
1−2
−6800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 60 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+7000%
|
1−2
−7000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 69
+6800%
|
1−2
−6800%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 19 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 152
+7500%
|
2−3
−7500%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 38 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 85
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−33 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and FX 580 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 8700% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 27.01 | 0.42 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 9 April 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 40 Watt |
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has a 6331% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 358.3% more advanced lithography process.
FX 580, on the other hand, has 100% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 580 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is a notebook card while Quadro FX 580 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
