NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti represent two very different design philosophies from the same manufacturer. The K1200 is a professional Maxwell-era card optimized for specific workloads, while the GTX 1660 Ti is a Turing-based consumer card built for broad performance. The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split: the K1200 wins in Vulkan compute, while the GTX 1660 Ti dominates OpenCL. This analysis examines their architectures, specifications, and benchmark results to determine where each card excels.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro K1200 has an average benchmark score of 8265, while the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti averages 7723. The K1200 sits in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 41st percentile for the GTX 1660 Ti, despite the latter having significantly higher raw compute specifications.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti achieves a Geekbench OpenCL score of 51029, which is 82.7% higher than the K1200's score of 8831. This is the largest performance disparity between the two cards in any benchmark test.

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro K1200 delivers a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7698, beating the GTX 1660 Ti's 5827 by a 32.1% margin. This is a surprising result given the GTX 1660 Ti's newer architecture and higher specifications.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card based on average score?

A: The K1200's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, which scores 8325 (0.7% higher). The GTX 1660 Ti's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon 540, scoring 7673 (0.7% lower). Both cards sit in a competitive mid-range bracket.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti offers 288.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is 3.6 times greater than the K1200's 80.19 GB/s. This is a critical differentiator for memory-intensive workloads.

Q: When was each card released?

A: The Quadro K1200 was released on 2015-01-27, while the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti launched on 2019-02-21. Both cards are now marked as end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The Quadro K1200 is built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million transistors per mm². The GTX 1660 Ti, in contrast, uses the Turing architecture with the TU116 chip, manufactured on a 12 nm process. This newer design packs 6,600 million transistors onto a 284 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 23.2 million transistors per mm² — nearly double the K1200's density.

The generation labels are somewhat confusing. The K1200 is listed as "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" even though it uses Maxwell architecture, while the GTX 1660 Ti belongs to the GeForce 16 generation despite being classified under the "GeForce 10-series" series name. The K1200's predecessor is listed as Quadro Fermi, and its successor as Quadro Maxwell, indicating it was a transitional product. The GTX 1660 Ti's predecessor is GeForce 10 and its successor is GeForce 20, showing its position between major consumer generations.

The compute capabilities differ dramatically. The K1200 features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The GTX 1660 Ti triples the shading units to 1536, triples the TMUs to 96, and triples the ROPs to 48. Neither card includes dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The FP32 performance tells the story: the K1200 delivers 1,057.8 GFLOPS, while the GTX 1660 Ti produces 5.437 TFLOPS — over five times more raw compute. The GTX 1660 Ti also supports FP16 at 10.87 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the K1200 lacks entirely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results present an unusual picture. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1660 Ti achieves a score of 51029, absolutely crushing the K1200's 8831. The deltaPct of -82.7% indicates the K1200 is that much slower. This result aligns with the theoretical compute advantage, as the GTX 1660 Ti's 5.437 TFLOPS FP32 throughput should translate directly to OpenCL workloads. The 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 80.19 GB/s also plays a role in compute tasks that are bandwidth-sensitive.

However, the Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script entirely. The Quadro K1200 scores 7698, while the GTX 1660 Ti manages only 5827. The K1200's 32.1% lead is remarkable given the GTX 1660 Ti's architectural advantages. This suggests that Vulkan driver optimization for the professional Quadro line may be significantly better, or that the workload characteristics of the Vulkan test favor the K1200's Maxwell design. The K1200's nearest rival in the Vulkan test is not listed, but its overall nearest rivals include the GTX 980, which it trails by 1.2% in average score.

With exactly one win each, the head-to-head is a draw. The winsA and winsB fields both show 1. However, the magnitude of the wins matters. The GTX 1660 Ti's OpenCL victory is by an 82.7% margin, while the K1200's Vulkan win is by 32.1%. This means the GTX 1660 Ti's total performance advantage across both tests is larger in absolute terms, but the K1200's Vulkan dominance is notable for any application using that API.

Specification Differences

The process node difference is stark: the K1200 uses 28 nm while the GTX 1660 Ti uses 12 nm. This directly impacts power efficiency and thermal characteristics. The K1200's TDP is 45 W with no power connectors required and a suggested 200 W PSU. The GTX 1660 Ti draws 120 W, requires one 8-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W power supply. The physical dimensions reflect this: the K1200 is a single-slot card at 160 mm length and 69 mm height, while the GTX 1660 Ti is dual-slot at 229 mm length, 111 mm height, and 35 mm width.

Memory configurations differ across every parameter. The K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) providing 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1660 Ti has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, with memory at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) delivering 288.0 GB/s. That is 50% more capacity, a newer memory type, a wider bus, and 3.6 times the bandwidth.

The bus interface also differs: the K1200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 while the GTX 1660 Ti uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are distinct as well — the K1200 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connections, while the GTX 1660 Ti provides one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and one DisplayPort 1.4a. DirectX support differs, with the K1200 at DirectX 12 (11_0) and the GTX 1660 Ti at DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 1660 Ti has a launch MSRP of 279 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K1200 is the clear winner for Vulkan-based applications. Its 32.1% lead over the GTX 1660 Ti in Geekbench Vulkan is substantial, and for any professional software stack that leverages Vulkan compute, the K1200 provides better performance despite its older architecture and much lower specifications. The four mini-DisplayPort outputs also make it suitable for multi-display professional setups. Its single-slot design and 45 W TDP mean it can fit into compact workstations without power connector requirements, making it ideal for dense or constrained environments.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is the winner for OpenCL-heavy workloads. Its 51029 score versus 8831 is a 5.8x advantage, and this aligns with its 5.4x higher FP32 throughput. Any task that uses OpenCL — including many scientific, rendering, and compute applications — will see dramatically better performance on the GTX 1660 Ti. The 6 GB GDDR6 memory with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a massive advantage for large datasets. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1061 and Passmark scores (DirectX 10: 66, DirectX 11: 103, DirectX 12: 51, DirectX 9: 190, G2D: 804, G3D: 12871, GPU Compute: 5226) further demonstrate its broad capability across multiple APIs.

The use-case split is therefore clear: the K1200 serves specialized Vulkan compute roles and professional multi-display configurations, while the GTX 1660 Ti dominates general compute, gaming, and OpenCL-based workloads. The average benchmark scores are close — 8265 versus 7723 — but they mask the very different performance profiles. A system builder choosing between these cards must prioritize their specific application's API usage. For Vulkan-centric professional workflows, the K1200's performance is surprisingly competitive. For virtually everything else, the GTX 1660 Ti's raw throughput wins decisively.