Quadro P3200 Max-Q vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile with Quadro P3200 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 80 Watt
28.91
+22.4%

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile outperforms P3200 Max-Q by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking197241
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation100.00no data
Power efficiency24.9221.72
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameTU116GP104
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date23 April 2019 (5 years ago)21 February 2018 (6 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 cores15361792
Core clock speed1455 MHz1139 MHz
Boost clock speed1590 MHz1404 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate152.6157.2
Floating-point processing power4.884 TFLOPS5.032 TFLOPS
ROPs4864
TMUs96112

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 x16MXM-B (3.0)
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 typeGDDR6GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB6 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1753 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.0 GB/s168.3 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)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.56.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA7.56.1

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 HD89
+27.1%
70−75
−27.1%
1440p57
+26.7%
45−50
−26.7%
4K36
+33.3%
27−30
−33.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.57no data
1440p4.02no data
4K6.36no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 63
+26%
50−55
−26%
Cyberpunk 2077 86
+22.9%
70−75
−22.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 89
+27.1%
70−75
−27.1%
Counter-Strike 2 57
+26.7%
45−50
−26.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 63
+26%
50−55
−26%
Forza Horizon 4 147
+22.5%
120−130
−22.5%
Forza Horizon 5 69
+25.5%
55−60
−25.5%
Metro Exodus 88
+25.7%
70−75
−25.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 99
+23.8%
80−85
−23.8%
Valorant 148
+23.3%
120−130
−23.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 112
+24.4%
90−95
−24.4%
Counter-Strike 2 49
+22.5%
40−45
−22.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 50
+25%
40−45
−25%
Dota 2 111
+23.3%
90−95
−23.3%
Far Cry 5 75
+25%
60−65
−25%
Fortnite 130−140
+26.4%
110−120
−26.4%
Forza Horizon 4 118
+24.2%
95−100
−24.2%
Forza Horizon 5 60
+33.3%
45−50
−33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 105
+23.5%
85−90
−23.5%
Metro Exodus 63
+26%
50−55
−26%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 232
+28.9%
180−190
−28.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 41
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 95−100
+28%
75−80
−28%
Valorant 71
+29.1%
55−60
−29.1%
World of Tanks 270−280
+23.2%
220−230
−23.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 78
+30%
60−65
−30%
Counter-Strike 2 42
+40%
30−33
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 45
+28.6%
35−40
−28.6%
Dota 2 116
+28.9%
90−95
−28.9%
Far Cry 5 119
+25.3%
95−100
−25.3%
Forza Horizon 4 101
+26.3%
80−85
−26.3%
Forza Horizon 5 50
+25%
40−45
−25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+22.9%
140−150
−22.9%
Valorant 125
+25%
100−105
−25%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 50−55
+25%
40−45
−25%
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55
+27.5%
40−45
−27.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+25%
140−150
−25%
Red Dead Redemption 2 26
+23.8%
21−24
−23.8%
World of Tanks 180−190
+25.3%
150−160
−25.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55
+37.5%
40−45
−37.5%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+33.3%
24−27
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+38.9%
18−20
−38.9%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+25.7%
70−75
−25.7%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+31.7%
60−65
−31.7%
Forza Horizon 5 42
+40%
30−33
−40%
Metro Exodus 60
+33.3%
45−50
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+28.6%
35−40
−28.6%
Valorant 81
+24.6%
65−70
−24.6%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+28.6%
21−24
−28.6%
Dota 2 50−55
+30%
40−45
−30%
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55
+30%
40−45
−30%
Metro Exodus 19
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90
+28.6%
70−75
−28.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 17
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+30%
40−45
−30%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27
+28.6%
21−24
−28.6%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+28.6%
21−24
−28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+25%
8−9
−25%
Dota 2 85
+30.8%
65−70
−30.8%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+30%
30−33
−30%
Fortnite 37
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+28.6%
35−40
−28.6%
Forza Horizon 5 22
+37.5%
16−18
−37.5%
Valorant 39
+30%
30−33
−30%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and P3200 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 27% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 27% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 33% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 28.91 23.62
Recency 23 April 2019 21 February 2018
Chip lithography 12 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 75 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has a 22.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 33.3% more advanced lithography process.

P3200 Max-Q, 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 P3200 Max-Q in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P3200 Max-Q 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 P3200 Max-Q
Quadro P3200 Max-Q

Other comparisons

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 1604 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 21 vote

Rate Quadro P3200 Max-Q 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.