GeForce GTX 1660 vs Quadro FX 1600M

Place in the ranking	1298	189
Place by popularity	not in top-100	40
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	47.57
Power efficiency	0.47	17.43
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	G84	TU116
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	1 June 2007 (17 years ago)	14 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149.90	$219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 has 475600% better value for money than FX 1600M.

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	32	1408
Core clock speed	625 MHz	1530 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	289 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	80 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	120 Watt
Texture fill rate	10.00	157.1
Floating-point processing power	0.08 TFLOPS	5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	48
TMUs	16	88

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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-HE	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 8-pin

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	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	192.1 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

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

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. 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.

FX 1600M 0.34

GTX 1660 30.34
+8824%

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.

FX 1600M 131

GTX 1660 11661
+8802%

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	0−1	84
1440p	0−1	51
4K	-0−1	27

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.61
1440p	no data	4.29
4K	no data	8.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −1100%	72 +1100%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −2267%	71 +2267%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −833%	56 +833%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1733%	55 +1733%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −2100%	132 +2100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −2700%	112 +2700%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −700%	48 +700%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1400%	45 +1400%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −2317%	145 +2317%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −1733%	110 +1733%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −2986%	216 +2986%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −900%	40 +900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −1940%	100−110 +1940%
World of Tanks	12−14 −2008%	270−280 +2008%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −617%	43 +617%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1167%	38 +1167%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −1333%	85−90 +1333%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −1483%	95 +1483%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −2429%	170−180 +2429%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

2−3

−6350%

129
+6350%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +23.1%	26 −23.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −667%	23 +667%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −2250%	90−95 +2250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −1100%	45−50 +1100%
Valorant	4−5 −1700%	72 +1700%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −227%	49 +227%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −227%	49 +227%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 −8000%	81 +8000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −227%	49 +227%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	30−35
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −400%	10 +400%
Dota 2	14−16 −480%	87 +480%
Valorant	1−2 −3700%	38 +3700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	86 +0%	86 +0%
Metro Exodus	95 +0%	95 +0%
Valorant	138 +0%	138 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Dota 2	150 +0%	150 +0%
Fortnite	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	63 +0%	63 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	115 +0%	115 +0%
Metro Exodus	66 +0%	66 +0%
Valorant	65 +0%	65 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Dota 2	197 +0%	197 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	59 +0%	59 +0%
Valorant	115 +0%	115 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	52 +0%	52 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	52 +0%	52 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	25 +0%	25 +0%
World of Tanks	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	67 +0%	67 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	40 +0%	40 +0%
Metro Exodus	59 +0%	59 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16 +0%	16 +0%
Metro Exodus	20 +0%	20 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Fortnite	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	36 +0%	36 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	22 +0%	22 +0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Counter-Strike 2, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 1600M is 23% faster.
in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1660 is 8000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

FX 1600M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
GTX 1660 is ahead in 31 test (49%)
there's a draw in 31 test (49%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.34	30.34
Recency	1 June 2007	14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	6 GB
Chip lithography	80 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	120 Watt

FX 1600M has 140% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 8823.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1600M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 1600M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.