Quadro NVS 320M vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

Place in performance ranking	147	1185
Place by popularity	37	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	25.84	no data
Architecture	Turing (2018−2021)	G8x (2007−2008)
GPU code name	Turing TU116	G84M
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	22 February 2019 (5 years ago)	9 June 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$279	no data
Current price	$284 (1x MSRP)	$66

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1536	32
Core clock speed	1500 MHz	575 MHz
Boost clock speed	1770 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,600 million	289 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	20 Watt
Texture fill rate	169.9	9.200
Floating-point performance	no data	73.6 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 1660 Ti and Quadro NVS 320M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-HE
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	GDDR3, GDDR2
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	12000 MHz	700 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288.0 GB/s	22.4 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	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.5	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	7.5	1.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 1660 Ti 33.47
+6098%

NVS 320M 0.54

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti outperforms Quadro NVS 320M by 6098% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 1660 Ti 12926
+6114%

NVS 320M 208

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti outperforms Quadro NVS 320M by 6114% in Passmark.

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	104 +10300%	1−2 −10300%
1440p	57	0−1
4K	38	0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

180−190

+5900%

3−4
−5900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4550−4600 +6049%	74 −6049%
Battlefield 5	8050−8100 +6092%	130 −6092%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	180−190 +5900%	3−4 −5900%
Cyberpunk 2077	180−190 +5900%	3−4 −5900%
Far Cry 5	6400−6450 +6054%	104 −6054%
Far Cry New Dawn	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Forza Horizon 4	8100−8150 +6083%	131 −6083%
Hitman 3	120−130 +5900%	2−3 −5900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	700−750 +5733%	12−14 −5733%
Metro Exodus	8300−8350 +6094%	134 −6094%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7350−7400 +6076%	119 −6076%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	400−450 +5614%	7−8 −5614%
Watch Dogs: Legion	550−600 +6011%	9−10 −6011%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3400−3450 +6082%	55 −6082%
Battlefield 5	7450−7500 +6057%	121 −6057%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	180−190 +5900%	3−4 −5900%
Cyberpunk 2077	180−190 +5900%	3−4 −5900%
Far Cry 5	5050−5100 +6059%	82 −6059%
Far Cry New Dawn	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Forza Horizon 4	13500−13550 +6093%	218 −6093%
Hitman 3	120−130 +5900%	2−3 −5900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	700−750 +5733%	12−14 −5733%
Metro Exodus	6350−6400 +6065%	103 −6065%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6350−6400 +6065%	103 −6065%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	400−450 +5614%	7−8 −5614%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	180−190 +5900%	3−4 −5900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	550−600 +6011%	9−10 −6011%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3050−3100 +6000%	50 −6000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	180−190 +5900%	3−4 −5900%
Cyberpunk 2077	180−190 +5900%	3−4 −5900%
Far Cry 5	3750−3800 +6048%	61 −6048%
Forza Horizon 4	6000−6050 +6086%	97 −6086%
Horizon Zero Dawn	700−750 +5733%	12−14 −5733%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	400−450 +5614%	7−8 −5614%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	180−190 +5900%	3−4 −5900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	550−600 +6011%	9−10 −6011%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6000−6050

+6086%

97
−6086%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4600−4650 +6033%	75 −6033%
Far Cry New Dawn	5050−5100 +6059%	82 −6059%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2500−2550 +5998%	41 −5998%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2200−2250 +6011%	36 −6011%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	240−250 +5900%	4−5 −5900%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Forza Horizon 4	4750−4800 +6069%	77 −6069%
Hitman 3	350−400 +5733%	6−7 −5733%
Horizon Zero Dawn	180−190 +5900%	3−4 −5900%
Metro Exodus	4000−4050 +6054%	65 −6054%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4800−4850 +6054%	78 −6054%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2850−2900 +6096%	45−50 −6096%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1700−1750 +5971%	27−30 −5971%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

180−190

+5900%

3−4
−5900%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2200−2250 +6011%	36 −6011%
Far Cry New Dawn	1750−1800 +5934%	29 −5934%
Hitman 3	1650−1700 +6011%	27−30 −6011%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1600−1650 +6054%	26 −6054%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2650−2700 +6063%	43 −6063%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1150−1200 +5953%	19 −5953%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1500−1550 +5900%	25 −5900%
Cyberpunk 2077	650−700 +5809%	11 −5809%
Far Cry 5	1200−1250 +5900%	20 −5900%
Forza Horizon 4	3150−3200 +6076%	51 −6076%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Metro Exodus	240−250 +5900%	4−5 −5900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	950−1000 +5838%	16−18 −5838%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

120−130

+5900%

2−3
−5900%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti and NVS 320M compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Ti is 10300% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.47	0.54
Recency	22 February 2019	9 June 2007
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	12 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	20 Watt