GeForce GTX 1660 vs Quadro K2200

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2200 with GeForce GTX 1660, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K2200
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 68 Watt
9.07

GTX 1660 outperforms K2200 by a whopping 227% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking482194
Place by popularitynot in top-10044
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.4346.50
Power efficiency9.3717.34
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGM107TU116
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)14 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$395.75 $219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

GTX 1660 has 1256% better value for money than Quadro K2200.

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 cores6401408
Core clock speed1046 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speed1124 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)68 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate44.96157.1
Floating-point processing power1.439 TFLOPS5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs1648
TMUs4088

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
Length202 mm229 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth80.19 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA5.07.5

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.

Quadro K2200 9.07
GTX 1660 29.63
+227%

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.

Quadro K2200 3568
GTX 1660 11659
+227%

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.

Quadro K2200 11423
GTX 1660 57946
+407%

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.

Quadro K2200 10079
GTX 1660 56067
+456%

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.

Quadro K2200 11410
GTX 1660 60172
+427%

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 HD24−27
−258%
86
+258%
1440p14−16
−271%
52
+271%
4K8−9
−263%
29
+263%

Cost per frame, $

1080p16.49
−548%
2.55
+548%
1440p28.27
−571%
4.21
+571%
4K49.47
−555%
7.55
+555%
  • GTX 1660 has 548% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 has 571% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 has 555% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 111
+0%
111
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 72
+0%
72
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 71
+0%
71
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 83
+0%
83
+0%
Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 56
+0%
56
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 58
+0%
58
+0%
Far Cry 5 100
+0%
100
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 132
+0%
132
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 86
+0%
86
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 306
+0%
306
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 49
+0%
49
+0%
Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 48
+0%
48
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 47
+0%
47
+0%
Dota 2 219
+0%
219
+0%
Far Cry 5 92
+0%
92
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 123
+0%
123
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 63
+0%
63
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 115
+0%
115
+0%
Metro Exodus 57
+0%
57
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 102
+0%
102
+0%
Valorant 287
+0%
287
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 43
+0%
43
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40
+0%
40
+0%
Dota 2 197
+0%
197
+0%
Far Cry 5 86
+0%
86
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 98
+0%
98
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 57
+0%
57
+0%
Valorant 115
+0%
115
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 52
+0%
52
+0%
Metro Exodus 33
+0%
33
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 129
+0%
129
+0%
Valorant 226
+0%
226
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24
+0%
24
+0%
Far Cry 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 76
+0%
76
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40
+0%
40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+0%
49
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+0%
35
+0%
Valorant 125
+0%
125
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6
+0%
6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Dota 2 87
+0%
87
+0%
Far Cry 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50
+0%
50
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 22
+0%
22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

This is how Quadro K2200 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 is 258% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 is 271% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 is 263% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.07 29.63
Recency 22 July 2014 14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 68 Watt 120 Watt

Quadro K2200 has 76.5% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 226.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2200 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop one.

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 K2200
Quadro K2200
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
GeForce GTX 1660

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


3.7 430 votes

Rate Quadro K2200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 5587 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K2200 or GeForce GTX 1660, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.