GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition vs Quadro K5000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K5000M with GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.

K5000M
2012
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
7.30
+365%

K5000M outperforms GTX 660M Mac Edition by a whopping 365% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking540970
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.48no data
Power efficiency5.042.17
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGK104GK107
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date7 August 2012 (12 years ago)1 April 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329.99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1344384
Core clock speed601 MHz950 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate67.3130.40
Floating-point processing power1.615 TFLOPS0.7296 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs11232

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed750 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/s80 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.1.126
CUDA+3.0

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 HD54
+440%
10−12
−440%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.11no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Elden Ring 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+383%
6−7
−383%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+425%
4−5
−425%
Valorant 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Dota 2 24−27
+400%
5−6
−400%
Elden Ring 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+433%
6−7
−433%
Fortnite 40−45
+378%
9−10
−378%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+383%
6−7
−383%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+400%
5−6
−400%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+392%
12−14
−392%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+425%
4−5
−425%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%
Valorant 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%
World of Tanks 110−120
+367%
24−27
−367%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Dota 2 24−27
+400%
5−6
−400%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+433%
6−7
−433%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+383%
6−7
−383%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+392%
12−14
−392%
Valorant 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Elden Ring 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Grand Theft Auto V 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+388%
8−9
−388%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
World of Tanks 50−55
+430%
10−11
−430%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Valorant 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Elden Ring 4−5 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+425%
4−5
−425%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Fortnite 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Valorant 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

This is how K5000M and GTX 660M Mac Edition compete in popular games:

  • K5000M is 440% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.30 1.57
Recency 7 August 2012 1 April 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 50 Watt

K5000M has a 365% higher aggregate performance score, and a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 660M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months, and 100% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K5000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K5000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition is a mobile workstation 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 K5000M
Quadro K5000M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition
GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition

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.


4.3 87 votes

Rate Quadro K5000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 22 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition 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.