GeForce GTX 1660 vs Quadro P4000

Place in the ranking	196	194
Place by popularity	not in top-100	44
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	17.36	46.14
Power efficiency	19.75	17.37
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GP104	TU116
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	6 February 2017 (8 years ago)	14 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$815	$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 166% better value for money than Quadro P4000.

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 cores	1792	1408
Core clock speed	1202 MHz	1530 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	120 Watt
Texture fill rate	165.8	157.1
Floating-point processing power	5.304 TFLOPS	5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	48
TMUs	112	88

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	241 mm	229 mm
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	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	8 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1901 MHz	2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192 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	4x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+
Display Port	1.4	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
3D Stereo	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.5
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
CUDA	6.1	7.5

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.

Quadro P4000 28.95

GTX 1660 29.09
+0.5%

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 P4000 11600

GTX 1660 11659
+0.5%

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 P4000 41357

GTX 1660 57928
+40.1%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro P4000 41732

GTX 1660 56067
+34.4%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Quadro P4000 38590

GTX 1660 60172
+55.9%

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	69 −21.7%	84 +21.7%
1440p	50−55 −2%	51 +2%
4K	24−27 −12.5%	27 +12.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	11.81 −353%	2.61 +353%
1440p	16.30 −280%	4.29 +280%
4K	33.96 −319%	8.11 +319%

GTX 1660 has 353% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 1660 has 280% lower cost per frame in 1440p
GTX 1660 has 319% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	55−60 −22%	72 +22%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 −12.7%	71 +12.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 −1.1%	85−90 +1.1%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +5.4%	56 −5.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +14.5%	55 −14.5%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +4.5%	132 −4.5%
Forza Horizon 5	75−80 −8.9%	86 +8.9%
Metro Exodus	75−80 −23.4%	95 +23.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 −77.8%	112 +77.8%
Valorant	120−130 −15%	138 +15%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 −1.1%	85−90 +1.1%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +22.9%	48 −22.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +40%	45 −40%
Dota 2	100−110 −48.5%	150 +48.5%
Far Cry 5	85−90 −70.6%	145 +70.6%
Fortnite	140−150 −0.7%	140−150 +0.7%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +25.5%	110 −25.5%
Forza Horizon 5	75−80 +25.4%	63 −25.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−105 −15%	115 +15%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +16.7%	66 −16.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 −22.7%	216 +22.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +57.5%	40 −57.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 −1%	100−110 +1%
Valorant	120−130 +84.6%	65 −84.6%
World of Tanks	270−280 −0.4%	270−280 +0.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 −1.1%	85−90 +1.1%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +37.2%	43 −37.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +65.8%	38 −65.8%
Dota 2	100−110 −95%	197 +95%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +45.3%	95 −45.3%
Forza Horizon 5	75−80 +33.9%	59 −33.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 −0.6%	170−180 +0.6%
Valorant	120−130 +4.3%	115 −4.3%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	50−55 +1.9%	52 −1.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	50−55 +1.9%	52 −1.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +35.7%	129 −35.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +12%	25 −12%
World of Tanks	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 −1.7%	60−65 +1.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +17.4%	23 −17.4%
Far Cry 5	90−95 −1.1%	90−95 +1.1%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +23.9%	67 −23.9%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +22.5%	40 −22.5%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +15.3%	59 −15.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Valorant	85−90 +19.4%	72 −19.4%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Dota 2	55−60 +12.2%	49 −12.2%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +12.2%	49 −12.2%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +20%	20 −20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 +16%	81 −16%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +12.2%	49 −12.2%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +117%	6 −117%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +10%	10 −10%
Dota 2	55−60 −58.2%	87 +58.2%
Far Cry 5	40−45 −2.4%	40−45 +2.4%
Fortnite	35−40 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +33.3%	36 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +22.7%	22 −22.7%
Valorant	40−45 +13.2%	38 −13.2%

This is how Quadro P4000 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 is 22% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 is 2% faster in 1440p
GTX 1660 is 13% faster in 4K

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

in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 117% faster.
in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 is 95% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P4000 is ahead in 34 tests (54%)
GTX 1660 is ahead in 23 tests (37%)
there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	28.95	29.09
Recency	6 February 2017	14 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	120 Watt

Quadro P4000 has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 20% lower power consumption.

GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 0.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 33.3% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro P4000 and GeForce GTX 1660.

Be aware that Quadro P4000 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.