Quadro P600 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Quadro P600, including specs and performance data.
1660 Ti outperforms P600 by a whopping 287% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 203 | 549 |
| Place by popularity | 33 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 33.39 | 2.51 |
| Power efficiency | 19.43 | 15.08 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | GP107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 February 2019 (6 years ago) | 7 February 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | $178 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1660 Ti has 1230% better value for money than Quadro P600.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1430 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1770 MHz | 1620 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 169.9 | 38.88 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.437 TFLOPS | 1.244 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 96 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 1.5 MB | 144 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 1024 KB |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 145 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1252 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 80.13 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01
SPECviewperf 12 - Maya
This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.
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
+189%
| 36
−189%
|
| 1440p | 59
+321%
| 14−16
−321%
|
| 4K | 39
+290%
| 10−12
−290%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.68
+84.3%
| 4.94
−84.3%
|
| 1440p | 4.73
+169%
| 12.71
−169%
|
| 4K | 7.15
+149%
| 17.80
−149%
|
- GTX 1660 Ti has 84% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti has 169% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti has 149% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+317%
|
40−45
−317%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+388%
|
16−18
−388%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
+353%
|
14−16
−353%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 129
+269%
|
35−40
−269%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+317%
|
40−45
−317%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 71
+344%
|
16−18
−344%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 109
+319%
|
24−27
−319%
|
| Fortnite | 247
+404%
|
45−50
−404%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 131
+274%
|
35−40
−274%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 107
+346%
|
24−27
−346%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
+353%
|
14−16
−353%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200
+590%
|
27−30
−590%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+138%
|
80−85
−138%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 112
+220%
|
35−40
−220%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+317%
|
40−45
−317%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+118%
|
120−130
−118%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57
+256%
|
16−18
−256%
|
| Dota 2 | 181
+123%
|
81
−123%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+281%
|
24−27
−281%
|
| Fortnite | 143
+192%
|
45−50
−192%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122
+249%
|
35−40
−249%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 94
+292%
|
24−27
−292%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 119
+310%
|
27−30
−310%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
+353%
|
14−16
−353%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+244%
|
16−18
−244%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150
+417%
|
27−30
−417%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
+364%
|
25
−364%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+138%
|
80−85
−138%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 102
+191%
|
35−40
−191%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| Dota 2 | 168
+133%
|
72
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 94
+262%
|
24−27
−262%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 97
+177%
|
35−40
−177%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
+353%
|
14−16
−353%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 129
+345%
|
27−30
−345%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
+343%
|
14
−343%
|
| Valorant | 118
+43.9%
|
80−85
−43.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 117
+139%
|
45−50
−139%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+380%
|
14−16
−380%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+250%
|
60−65
−250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+464%
|
10−12
−464%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+313%
|
8−9
−313%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+317%
|
40−45
−317%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+157%
|
90−95
−157%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+322%
|
18−20
−322%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+350%
|
6−7
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 67
+319%
|
16−18
−319%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+305%
|
18−20
−305%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+391%
|
10−12
−391%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 75
+341%
|
16−18
−341%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+195%
|
18−20
−195%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
+514%
|
7−8
−514%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+356%
|
40−45
−356%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 43
+438%
|
8−9
−438%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Dota 2 | 94
+224%
|
27−30
−224%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 51
+292%
|
12−14
−292%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 39
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 25
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
This is how GTX 1660 Ti and Quadro P600 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 Ti is 189% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1660 Ti is 321% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1660 Ti is 290% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti is 1550% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1660 Ti surpassed Quadro P600 in all 66 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.96 | 7.49 |
| Recency | 22 February 2019 | 7 February 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 40 Watt |
GTX 1660 Ti has a 286.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro P600, on the other hand, has 200% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P600 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a desktop graphics card while Quadro P600 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.
