Quadro M2000 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GTX 1660 Max-Q GTX 1660 Mobile GTX 1660 Ti Mobile GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q GTX 1660 Ti Mobile Refresh
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Quadro M2000 Quadro M3000 SE Quadro M4000 Quadro M5000 Quadro M5000 SE Quadro M6000 Quadro M6000 24 GB

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile with Quadro M2000, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 80 Watt
24.85
+178%

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile outperforms M2000 by a whopping 178% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile GTX 1660 Ti
Quadro M2000 Quadro M2000

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking206449
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation100.003.77
Power efficiency24.739.48
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameTU116GM206
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date23 April 2019 (5 years ago)8 April 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 $437.75

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 2553% 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 cores1536768
Core clock speed1455 MHz796 MHz
Boost clock speed1590 MHz1163 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million2,940 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate152.655.82
Floating-point processing power4.884 TFLOPS1.786 TFLOPS
ROPs4832
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 sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data201 mm
Widthno data1" (2.5 cm)
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR6128 Bit
Maximum RAM amount6 GB4 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1653 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.0 GB/sUp 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x DisplayPort
Number of simultaneous displaysno data4

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Desktop Managementno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12
Shader Model6.56.4
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.126
CUDA7.55.2

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 HD88
+193%
30−35
−193%
1440p58
+222%
18−21
−222%
4K36
+200%
12−14
−200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.60
+461%
14.59
−461%
1440p3.95
+516%
24.32
−516%
4K6.36
+473%
36.48
−473%
  • GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 461% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 516% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 473% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 109
+211%
35−40
−211%
Counter-Strike 2 147
+194%
50−55
−194%
Cyberpunk 2077 86
+187%
30−33
−187%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 81
+200%
27−30
−200%
Battlefield 5 111
+217%
35−40
−217%
Counter-Strike 2 133
+196%
45−50
−196%
Cyberpunk 2077 68
+183%
24−27
−183%
Far Cry 5 93
+210%
30−33
−210%
Fortnite 120−130
+187%
45−50
−187%
Forza Horizon 4 134
+198%
45−50
−198%
Forza Horizon 5 100
+186%
35−40
−186%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+206%
35−40
−206%
Valorant 209
+179%
75−80
−179%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 50
+213%
16−18
−213%
Battlefield 5 103
+194%
35−40
−194%
Counter-Strike 2 101
+189%
35−40
−189%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 260−270
+181%
95−100
−181%
Cyberpunk 2077 54
+200%
18−20
−200%
Dota 2 121
+203%
40−45
−203%
Far Cry 5 89
+197%
30−33
−197%
Fortnite 120−130
+187%
45−50
−187%
Forza Horizon 4 125
+213%
40−45
−213%
Forza Horizon 5 90
+200%
30−33
−200%
Grand Theft Auto V 105
+200%
35−40
−200%
Metro Exodus 54
+200%
18−20
−200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+206%
35−40
−206%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 103
+194%
35−40
−194%
Valorant 207
+196%
70−75
−196%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 94
+213%
30−33
−213%
Cyberpunk 2077 52
+189%
18−20
−189%
Dota 2 116
+190%
40−45
−190%
Far Cry 5 83
+207%
27−30
−207%
Forza Horizon 4 99
+183%
35−40
−183%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 109
+211%
35−40
−211%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55
+206%
18−20
−206%
Valorant 125
+213%
40−45
−213%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 107
+206%
35−40
−206%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+195%
21−24
−195%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+189%
65−70
−189%
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55
+213%
16−18
−213%
Metro Exodus 30
+200%
10−11
−200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+192%
60−65
−192%
Valorant 197
+181%
70−75
−181%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 69
+188%
24−27
−188%
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+213%
8−9
−213%
Far Cry 5 60
+186%
21−24
−186%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+196%
24−27
−196%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+188%
16−18
−188%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 69
+188%
24−27
−188%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+200%
7−8
−200%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+180%
10−11
−180%
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55
+189%
18−20
−189%
Metro Exodus 19
+217%
6−7
−217%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+192%
12−14
−192%
Valorant 152
+204%
50−55
−204%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 38
+217%
12−14
−217%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+180%
10−11
−180%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+233%
3−4
−233%
Dota 2 85
+183%
30−33
−183%
Far Cry 5 31
+210%
10−11
−210%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+200%
16−18
−200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+200%
10−11
−200%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%

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 200% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 24.85 8.93
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 178.3% 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.

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
NVIDIA Quadro M2000
Quadro M2000
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
vs
GTX 1070 Mobile GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile
Quadro M2000 Quadro M2000
vs
Quadro K5000 Quadro K5000
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
vs
RX 7600M Radeon RX 7600M
UHD Graphics 770 UHD Graphics 770
vs
7100 + nForce 630i 7100 + nForce 630i
Arc 7-Cores iGPU Arc 7 Cores iGPU
vs
GTX 1050 Ti Mobile GTX 1050 Ti Mobile
GeForce4 MX 440 Mac Edition GeForce4 MX 440 Mac Edition
vs
GTX 1050 Mobile GTX 1050 Mobile
Iris Xe Graphics 64EUs (Alder Lake) Iris Xe Graphics 64EUs (Alder Lake)
vs
RTX 2060 Mobile RTX 2060 Mobile
T2000 Max-Q T2000 Max-Q
vs
RTX 2060 Max-Q RTX 2060 Max-Q
7800 GT 7800 GT
vs
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
CMP 70HX CMP 70HX
vs
GTX 1650 GTX 1650
R7 260 R7 260
vs
GTX 1660 Ti GTX 1660 Ti
R7 M350 R7 M350
vs
GTX 1660 Ti GTX 1660 Ti
Tesla C2075 Tesla C2075
vs
GTX 1660 Ti GTX 1660 Ti

Community ratings

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

4.3 1624 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 216 votes

Rate Quadro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile or Quadro M2000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.