GeForce GTX 1660 vs Quadro M3000M

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

M3000M
14.34

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M3000M by 110% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking334170
Place by popularitynot in top-10048
Value for money2.2625.04
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code nameGM204Turing TU116
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date2 October 2015 (8 years old)14 March 2019 (5 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$219
Current price$981 $252 (1.2x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 has 1008% better value for money than M3000M.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1,0241408
Core clock speed1050 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1785 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate67.20157.1
Floating-point performance2,150 gflopsno data

Size and compatibility

Information on Quadro M3000M and GeForce GTX 1660 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 8-pin

Memory

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 width256 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed5000 MHz8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s192.1 GB/s
Shared memory--

Video outputs and ports

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 outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMIno data+
Display Port1.2no data

Technologies

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

Optimus+no data
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API support

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

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.06.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA5.27.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

M3000M 14.34
GTX 1660 30.17
+110%

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M3000M by 110% in our combined benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

M3000M 5556
GTX 1660 11692
+110%

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M3000M by 110% in Passmark.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

M3000M 27405
GTX 1660 71229
+160%

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M3000M by 160% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

M3000M 8289
GTX 1660 21131
+155%

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M3000M by 155% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

M3000M 6537
GTX 1660 14055
+115%

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M3000M by 115% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

M3000M 44603
GTX 1660 80889
+81.4%

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M3000M by 81% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

M3000M 16037
GTX 1660 57413
+258%

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M3000M by 258% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

M3000M 16677
GTX 1660 55668
+234%

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M3000M by 234% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

M3000M 15678
GTX 1660 60172
+284%

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M3000M by 284% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M3000M 50
GTX 1660 120
+138%

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M3000M by 138% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M3000M 85
+72%
GTX 1660 49

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 1660 by 72% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M3000M 52
+505%
GTX 1660 9

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 1660 by 505% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M3000M 77
+29.4%
GTX 1660 60

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 1660 by 29% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M3000M 65
+60.4%
GTX 1660 40

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 1660 by 60% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M3000M 22
GTX 1660 27
+23.2%

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M3000M by 23% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M3000M 40
GTX 1660 63
+58.8%

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M3000M by 59% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M3000M 5
GTX 1660 6
+20.8%

GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M3000M by 21% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.

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 HD60
−43.3%
86
+43.3%
1440p21−24
−129%
48
+129%
4K25
−12%
28
+12%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−223%
71
+223%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−33
−90%
55−60
+90%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−146%
59
+146%
Battlefield 5 45−50
−91.8%
90−95
+91.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
−203%
112
+203%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−164%
58
+164%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−170%
100
+170%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
−144%
95
+144%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−159%
132
+159%
Hitman 3 35−40
−182%
110
+182%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
−173%
82
+173%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−204%
73
+204%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
−210%
93
+210%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−189%
78
+189%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−33
−90%
55−60
+90%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−75%
42
+75%
Battlefield 5 45−50
−91.8%
90−95
+91.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
−130%
85
+130%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−114%
47
+114%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−149%
92
+149%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
−128%
89
+128%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−141%
123
+141%
Hitman 3 35−40
−131%
90
+131%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
−103%
61
+103%
Metro Exodus 21−24
−159%
57
+159%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−66.7%
40
+66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
−160%
78
+160%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
−143%
102
+143%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−144%
66
+144%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−33
−90%
55−60
+90%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−54.2%
37
+54.2%
Battlefield 5 45−50
−91.8%
90−95
+91.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−81.8%
40
+81.8%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−132%
86
+132%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
−110%
82
+110%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−92.2%
98
+92.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
−159%
57
+159%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−7.4%
29
+7.4%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−171%
57
+171%
Hitman 3 21−24
−159%
57
+159%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−100%
40
+100%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−154%
33
+154%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−150%
25
+150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
−167%
48
+167%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
−120%
30−35
+120%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
−145%
27
+145%
Battlefield 5 30−33
−120%
65−70
+120%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−243%
24
+243%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−157%
59
+157%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−127%
59
+127%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
−171%
76
+171%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−179%
35−40
+179%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
−111%
19
+111%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
−220%
32
+220%
Hitman 3 12−14
−138%
31
+138%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−10%
11
+10%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−186%
20
+186%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−167%
24
+167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
−150%
35
+150%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−150%
20−22
+150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
−114%
15
+114%
Battlefield 5 14−16
−140%
35−40
+140%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−400%
10
+400%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−173%
30
+173%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
−121%
31
+121%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
−150%
50
+150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−140%
12
+140%

This is how M3000M and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • GTX 1660 is 43.3% faster than M3000M

1440p resolution:

  • GTX 1660 is 129% faster than M3000M

4K resolution:

  • GTX 1660 is 12% faster than M3000M

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

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 is 400% faster than the M3000M.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 1660 surpassed M3000M in all 68 of our tests.

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 14.34 30.17
Recency 2 October 2015 14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 120 Watt

The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M3000M 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.

User ratings

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
Quadro M3000M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
GeForce GTX 1660

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User ratings: view and submit

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


3.8 282 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro M3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 4595 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.