Quadro 4000M vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Quadro 4000M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1660 Ti outperforms 4000M by a whopping 910% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 165 | 748 |
| Place by popularity | 27 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 42.38 | 0.37 |
| Power efficiency | 19.29 | 2.29 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | GF104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 22 February 2019 (5 years ago) | 22 February 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1660 Ti has 11354% better value for money than Quadro 4000M.
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 | 336 |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz | 475 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1770 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 169.9 | 26.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.437 TFLOPS | 0.6384 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 96 | 56 |
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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | no data |
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 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 80 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 2.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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 | 103
+45.1%
| 71
−45.1%
|
| 1440p | 60
+1100%
| 5−6
−1100%
|
| 4K | 39
+1200%
| 3−4
−1200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.71
+133%
| 6.32
−133%
|
| 1440p | 4.65
+1831%
| 89.80
−1831%
|
| 4K | 7.15
+1992%
| 149.67
−1992%
|
- GTX 1660 Ti has 133% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti has 1831% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti has 1992% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+644%
|
9−10
−644%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+875%
|
8−9
−875%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90
+900%
|
9−10
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+644%
|
9−10
−644%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 36
+350%
|
8−9
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 156
+1014%
|
14−16
−1014%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 94
+2250%
|
4−5
−2250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 98
+1300%
|
7−8
−1300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 119
+982%
|
10−12
−982%
|
| Valorant | 161
+2583%
|
6−7
−2583%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 123
+1267%
|
9−10
−1267%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+644%
|
9−10
−644%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 28
+250%
|
8−9
−250%
|
| Dota 2 | 140
+1456%
|
9−10
−1456%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 118
+556%
|
18−20
−556%
|
| Fortnite | 134
+605%
|
18−20
−605%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 127
+807%
|
14−16
−807%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 72
+1700%
|
4−5
−1700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 119
+1222%
|
9−10
−1222%
|
| Metro Exodus | 68
+871%
|
7−8
−871%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 180−190
+523%
|
30−33
−523%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45
+309%
|
10−12
−309%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110−120
+858%
|
12−14
−858%
|
| Valorant | 82
+1267%
|
6−7
−1267%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+379%
|
55−60
−379%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 78
+767%
|
9−10
−767%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+644%
|
9−10
−644%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Dota 2 | 168
+1767%
|
9−10
−1767%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+400%
|
18−20
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110
+686%
|
14−16
−686%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 66
+1550%
|
4−5
−1550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 98
+227%
|
30−33
−227%
|
| Valorant | 118
+1867%
|
6−7
−1867%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+661%
|
21−24
−661%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 28
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| World of Tanks | 210−220
+835%
|
21−24
−835%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 63
+2000%
|
3−4
−2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+1225%
|
8−9
−1225%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 78
+2500%
|
3−4
−2500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 47
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65
+983%
|
6−7
−983%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+817%
|
6−7
−817%
|
| Valorant | 82
+720%
|
10−11
−720%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 56
+250%
|
16−18
−250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+250%
|
16−18
−250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+1078%
|
9−10
−1078%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 19
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 56
+250%
|
16−18
−250%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 94
+488%
|
16−18
−488%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+1467%
|
3−4
−1467%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 43
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Valorant | 41
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Ti and Quadro 4000M compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti is 45% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti is 1100% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti is 1200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti is 4200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1660 Ti surpassed Quadro 4000M in all 59 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.23 | 3.19 |
| Recency | 22 February 2019 | 22 February 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 100 Watt |
GTX 1660 Ti has a 910.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro 4000M, on the other hand, has 20% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a desktop card while Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
