GeForce GTX 1660 vs Quadro FX 3700

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Quadro FX 1500 Quadro FX 1700 Quadro FX 1800 Quadro FX 3000 Quadro FX 3400 Quadro FX 3450 Quadro FX 3500 Quadro FX 3700 Quadro FX 3800 Quadro FX 4600 Quadro FX 4800 Quadro FX 5800
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GTX 1050 GTX 1050 Ti GTX 1060 6 GB GTX 1070 GTX 1080 Ti GTX 1630 GTX 1650 GTX 1650 GDDR6 GTX 1650 SUPER GTX 1660 GTX 1660 Super GTX 1660 Ti

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3700 with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.

FX 3700
2008
512 MB GDDR3, 78 Watt
0.98

GTX 1660 outperforms FX 3700 by a whopping 2988% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

FX 3700 FX 3700
GTX 1660 GTX 1660

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1108182
Place by popularitynot in top-10052
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data48.68
Power efficiency0.8717.53
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameG92TU116
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date8 January 2008 (16 years ago)14 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,599 $219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FX 3700 and GTX 1660 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores1121408
Core clock speed500 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1785 MHz
Number of transistors754 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)78 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate28.00157.1
Floating-point processing power0.28 TFLOPS5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs1648
TMUs5688

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mm229 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1x 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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount512 MB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s192.1 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Video1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA1.17.5

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 3700 0.98
GTX 1660 30.26
+2988%

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 3700 377
GTX 1660 11674
+2997%

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 HD2−3
−4000%
82
+4000%
1440p1−2
−4800%
49
+4800%
4K0−127

Cost per frame, $

1080p799.502.67
1440p1599.004.47
4Kno data8.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 71
+0%
71
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 59
+0%
59
+0%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 73
+0%
73
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 58
+0%
58
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Hitman 3 69
+0%
69
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 306
+0%
306
+0%
Metro Exodus 144
+0%
144
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 112
+0%
112
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 227
+0%
227
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 123
+0%
123
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 42
+0%
42
+0%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 67
+0%
67
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 47
+0%
47
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Hitman 3 67
+0%
67
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 287
+0%
287
+0%
Metro Exodus 113
+0%
113
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 79
+0%
79
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110
+0%
110
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 214
+0%
214
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 37
+0%
37
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 49
+0%
49
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40
+0%
40
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 98
+0%
98
+0%
Hitman 3 59
+0%
59
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 93
+0%
93
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 95
+0%
95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 57
+0%
57
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 29
+0%
29
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 81
+0%
81
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27
+0%
27
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 34
+0%
34
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24
+0%
24
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Hitman 3 39
+0%
39
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 67
+0%
67
+0%
Metro Exodus 59
+0%
59
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 67
+0%
67
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 187
+0%
187
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 53
+0%
53
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hitman 3 21
+0%
21
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 63
+0%
63
+0%
Metro Exodus 44
+0%
44
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+0%
35
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 15
+0%
15
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 17
+0%
17
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50
+0%
50
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 36
+0%
36
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12
+0%
12
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 26
+0%
26
+0%

This is how FX 3700 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 is 4000% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 is 4800% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.98 30.26
Recency 8 January 2008 14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 78 Watt 120 Watt

FX 3700 has 53.8% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 2987.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 441.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3700 is a workstation graphics 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.

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 Quadro FX 3700
Quadro FX 3700
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
GeForce GTX 1660
Like
Like

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

FX 3700 Quadro FX 3700
vs
FX 1800 Quadro FX 1800
GTX 1660 GeForce GTX 1660
vs
Arc A580 Arc A580
FX 3700 Quadro FX 3700
vs
NVS 315 NVS 315
FX 3700 Quadro FX 3700
vs
FX 4500 Quadro FX 4500
FX 3700 Quadro FX 3700
vs
NVS 510M Quadro NVS 510M
FX 3700 Quadro FX 3700
vs
P106-100 P106 100
FX 3700 Quadro FX 3700
vs
RTX 2080 Ti GeForce RTX 2080 Ti
FX 3700 Quadro FX 3700
vs
R5 M250 Radeon R5 M250
FX 3700 Quadro FX 3700
vs
RX 5700 XT Radeon RX 5700 XT
FX 3700 Quadro FX 3700
vs
RTX 4090 GeForce RTX 4090
FX 3700 Quadro FX 3700
vs
RX 7900 XTX Radeon RX 7900 XTX
VX 200 Quadro VX 200
vs
Quadro DCC Quadro DCC
VX 200 Quadro VX 200
vs
RTX 8000 Quadro RTX 8000

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.1 21 vote

Rate Quadro FX 3700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 5196 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 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.