Quadro M4000 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile with Quadro M4000, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile outperforms M4000 by an impressive 66% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 203 | 326 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 100.00 | 6.02 |
| Power efficiency | 24.78 | 9.93 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | GM204 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) | 29 June 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | $791 |
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 1561% better value for money than Quadro M4000.
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 | 1664 |
| Core clock speed | 1455 MHz | 773 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 5,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 152.6 | 80.39 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.884 TFLOPS | 2.573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 64 |
| TMUs | 96 | 104 |
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 | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1 x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | Up to 192 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 | 4x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| Multi-display synchronization | no data | Quadro Sync |
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 | + |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API and SDK 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 | 90
+80%
| 50−55
−80%
|
| 1440p | 60
+71.4%
| 35−40
−71.4%
|
| 4K | 38
+81%
| 21−24
−81%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.54
+522%
| 15.82
−522%
|
| 1440p | 3.82
+492%
| 22.60
−492%
|
| 4K | 6.03
+525%
| 37.67
−525%
|
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 522% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 492% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has 525% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 109
+67.7%
|
65−70
−67.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 63
+80%
|
35−40
−80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 86
+72%
|
50−55
−72%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 81
+80%
|
45−50
−80%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 111
+70.8%
|
65−70
−70.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 54
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 68
+70%
|
40−45
−70%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+69.1%
|
55−60
−69.1%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+72%
|
75−80
−72%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+67.5%
|
80−85
−67.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 69
+72.5%
|
40−45
−72.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+78.3%
|
60−65
−78.3%
|
| Valorant | 209
+74.2%
|
120−130
−74.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 103
+71.7%
|
60−65
−71.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 49
+81.5%
|
27−30
−81.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+66.9%
|
160−170
−66.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| Dota 2 | 121
+72.9%
|
70−75
−72.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+78%
|
50−55
−78%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+72%
|
75−80
−72%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 125
+66.7%
|
75−80
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+71.4%
|
35−40
−71.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+75%
|
60−65
−75%
|
| Metro Exodus | 54
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+78.3%
|
60−65
−78.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 103
+71.7%
|
60−65
−71.7%
|
| Valorant | 207
+72.5%
|
120−130
−72.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 94
+70.9%
|
55−60
−70.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+83.3%
|
30−33
−83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+73.3%
|
30−33
−73.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 116
+78.5%
|
65−70
−78.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 83
+84.4%
|
45−50
−84.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 99
+80%
|
55−60
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 109
+67.7%
|
65−70
−67.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55
+83.3%
|
30−33
−83.3%
|
| Valorant | 125
+66.7%
|
75−80
−66.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 107
+78.3%
|
60−65
−78.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+70.9%
|
110−120
−70.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+75%
|
100−105
−75%
|
| Valorant | 197
+79.1%
|
110−120
−79.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 69
+72.5%
|
40−45
−72.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+71.4%
|
35−40
−71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+77.5%
|
40−45
−77.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 42
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+70.4%
|
27−30
−70.4%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 69
+72.5%
|
40−45
−72.5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+73.3%
|
30−33
−73.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 152
+68.9%
|
90−95
−68.9%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 85
+70%
|
50−55
−70%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 22
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and Quadro M4000 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 80% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 71% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 81% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.23 | 16.96 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 29 June 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 120 Watt |
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has a 66.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.
Quadro M4000, on the other hand, has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is a notebook card while Quadro M4000 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.
