Quadro M2000 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile with Quadro M2000, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile outperforms M2000 by a whopping 180% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 194 | 441 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 100.00 | 3.63 |
| Power efficiency | 24.77 | 9.44 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | GM206 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) | 8 April 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | $437.75 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 2655% better value for money than Quadro M2000.
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 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1455 MHz | 796 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | 1163 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 2,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 152.6 | 55.82 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.884 TFLOPS | 1.786 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 96 | 48 |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 201 mm |
| Width | no data | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| 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 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | Up to 106 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 | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 5.2 |
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
+193%
| 30−35
−193%
|
| 1440p | 58
+222%
| 18−21
−222%
|
| 4K | 32
+220%
| 10−12
−220%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.60 | 14.59 |
| 1440p | 3.95 | 24.32 |
| 4K | 7.16 | 43.78 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 86
+187%
|
30−33
−187%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 80
+196%
|
27−30
−196%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 66
+214%
|
21−24
−214%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 129
+187%
|
45−50
−187%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 82
+204%
|
27−30
−204%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 68
+183%
|
24−27
−183%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
+180%
|
35−40
−180%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 102
+191%
|
35−40
−191%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 304
+204%
|
100−105
−204%
|
| Hitman 3 | 77
+185%
|
27−30
−185%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 209
+199%
|
70−75
−199%
|
| Metro Exodus | 126
+180%
|
45−50
−180%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 99
+183%
|
35−40
−183%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 155
+182%
|
55−60
−182%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 225
+181%
|
80−85
−181%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 125
+213%
|
40−45
−213%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 49
+206%
|
16−18
−206%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 109
+211%
|
35−40
−211%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 73
+204%
|
24−27
−204%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54
+200%
|
18−20
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 77
+185%
|
27−30
−185%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 70
+192%
|
24−27
−192%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 256
+184%
|
90−95
−184%
|
| Hitman 3 | 74
+208%
|
24−27
−208%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 207
+196%
|
70−75
−196%
|
| Metro Exodus | 104
+197%
|
35−40
−197%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 83
+207%
|
27−30
−207%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 118
+195%
|
40−45
−195%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+211%
|
18−20
−211%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 214
+185%
|
75−80
−185%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 53
+194%
|
18−20
−194%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 42
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 53
+194%
|
18−20
−194%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+189%
|
18−20
−189%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 57
+217%
|
18−20
−217%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 99
+183%
|
35−40
−183%
|
| Hitman 3 | 63
+200%
|
21−24
−200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 90
+200%
|
30−33
−200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 101
+189%
|
35−40
−189%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55
+206%
|
18−20
−206%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 33
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 80
+196%
|
27−30
−196%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+214%
|
21−24
−214%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 46
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 36
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 32
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 38
+217%
|
12−14
−217%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 182
+180%
|
65−70
−180%
|
| Hitman 3 | 41
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 65
+210%
|
21−24
−210%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60
+186%
|
21−24
−186%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 55−60
+222%
|
18−20
−222%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 203
+190%
|
70−75
−190%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 56
+211%
|
18−20
−211%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 25
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
| Hitman 3 | 25
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 76
+181%
|
27−30
−181%
|
| Metro Exodus | 41
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 22
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 13
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 19
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−35
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 13
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+200%
|
9−10
−200%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and Quadro M2000 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 193% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 222% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 220% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.93 | 10.34 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 8 April 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has a 179.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro M2000, 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 M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is a notebook card while Quadro M2000 is a workstation 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.
