GeForce GTX 1660 vs Quadro M520
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M520 by 525% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 604 | 172 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 52 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 25.03 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | GM108 | Turing TU116 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 13 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 14 March 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $219 |
| Current price | no data | $252 (1.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
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 cores | 384 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 756 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1019 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 16.66 | 157.1 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro M520 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 size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40 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 | no data | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | no data |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 5.0 | 7.5 |
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.
GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M520 by 525% based on our aggregated 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%
GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M520 by 525% 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%
GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M520 by 532% 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%
GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M520 by 695% 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%
GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M520 by 500% 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%
GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M520 by 504% 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%
GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M520 by 802% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M520 by 216% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
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%
GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms Quadro M520 by 739% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
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 | 21
−310%
| 86
+310%
|
| 1440p | 7−8
−586%
| 48
+586%
|
| 4K | 12
−133%
| 28
+133%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−788%
|
71
+788%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−533%
|
55−60
+533%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
−1375%
|
59
+1375%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−571%
|
90−95
+571%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
−600%
|
112
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−625%
|
58
+625%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−900%
|
100
+900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
−850%
|
95
+850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−780%
|
132
+780%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−12
−900%
|
110
+900%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
−811%
|
82
+811%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−711%
|
73
+711%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−675%
|
93
+675%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
−1200%
|
78
+1200%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−533%
|
55−60
+533%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
−950%
|
42
+950%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−571%
|
90−95
+571%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
−431%
|
85
+431%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−488%
|
47
+488%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−820%
|
92
+820%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
−790%
|
89
+790%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−720%
|
123
+720%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−12
−718%
|
90
+718%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
−578%
|
61
+578%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−714%
|
57
+714%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−344%
|
40
+344%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−550%
|
78
+550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−920%
|
102
+920%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
−1000%
|
66
+1000%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−533%
|
55−60
+533%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
−825%
|
37
+825%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−571%
|
90−95
+571%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−400%
|
40
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−760%
|
86
+760%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
−720%
|
82
+720%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−553%
|
98
+553%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−470%
|
57
+470%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
−383%
|
29
+383%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−613%
|
57
+613%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−613%
|
57
+613%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−264%
|
40
+264%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−1000%
|
33
+1000%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−733%
|
25
+733%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−500%
|
48
+500%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−1000%
|
30−35
+1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1100%
|
24
+1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−743%
|
59
+743%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−1375%
|
59
+1375%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1167%
|
76
+1167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−875%
|
35−40
+875%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 19 |
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−967%
|
32
+967%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−520%
|
31
+520%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−57.1%
|
11
+57.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2
−2300%
|
24
+2300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−3400%
|
35
+3400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−900%
|
20−22
+900%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−650%
|
15
+650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 10 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−500%
|
30
+500%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−343%
|
31
+343%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1567%
|
50
+1567%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 12 |
This is how Quadro M520 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is 310% faster than Quadro M520 in 1080p
- GTX 1660 is 586% faster than Quadro M520 in 1440p
- GTX 1660 is 133% faster than Quadro M520 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1660 is 3400% faster than the Quadro M520.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1660 surpassed Quadro M520 in all 61 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.83 | 30.21 |
| Recency | 13 January 2017 | 14 March 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 120 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M520 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M520 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
