NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti represent two very different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects a significant generational gap. The GTX 1660 Ti is the clear performance leader, but the comparison reveals interesting nuances about compute workloads versus standardized testing. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark, with the GTX 1660 Ti winning decisively.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are stark. The GTX 1660 Ti scores 51,029, while the Quadro K4100M manages only 9,149. This translates to an 82.1% deficit for the older Quadro, meaning the GTX 1660 Ti is roughly 5.6 times faster in this raw compute workload. This is not a marginal win; it is a complete overhaul in processing capability.

This single result paints a clear picture of overall compute performance. The GTX 1660 Ti’s score of 51,029 places it in a different league entirely. In contrast, the Quadro K4100M’s score of 9,149 is closer to what you would expect from a much older, entry-level part. The data suggests that for any modern compute-heavy task, the GTX 1660 Ti is the only viable option.

While the head-to-head data is limited to one test, the broader benchmark suites for each card reinforce this trend. The GTX 1660 Ti’s average benchmark score is 7,723, which is actually lower than the Quadro K4100M’s average of 7,906. This is a curious inversion. It happens because the GTX 1660 Ti’s average includes very low scores from older DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 tests (190 and 66, respectively), which drag down its average. In contrast, the Quadro K4100M only has two Geekbench scores, both of which are relatively consistent. This highlights that the average score can be misleading, and the specific OpenCL result is far more indicative of raw compute power.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, which explains their performance disparity. The Quadro K4100M uses the Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The GTX 1660 Ti, on the other hand, uses the newer Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 6,600 million transistors on a slightly smaller 284 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 23.2M per mm². This newer, denser process is a primary reason for the performance gap.

The core configurations are also vastly different. The Quadro K4100M has 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 ROPs. The GTX 1660 Ti increases this to 1,536 shading units, maintains the same 96 TMUs, and boosts ROPs to 48. The clock speeds tell an even bigger story. The Quadro K4100M has a base and boost clock of just 706 MHz, while the GTX 1660 Ti starts at 1,500 MHz and boosts up to 1,770 MHz. This combination of more cores and significantly higher clocks leads to a massive throughput advantage.

Memory is another major differentiator. The Quadro K4100M features 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1660 Ti offers 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, but with a much higher effective speed of 12 Gbps, it achieves 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is nearly three times the memory bandwidth, which is critical for high-resolution textures and compute tasks. The API support also differs, with the GTX 1660 Ti supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4100M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The Verdict

Strictly from the data, the choice is clear for any performance-sensitive task: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is the superior product. Its 82.1% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test is an overwhelming victory. The GTX 1660 Ti also offers a more modern feature set, higher memory bandwidth, and significantly faster clocks. The Quadro K4100M’s only saving grace is its lower 100 W TDP compared to the GTX 1660 Ti’s 120 W, but this is a small concession for a massive performance loss.

The Quadro K4100M’s average benchmark score being higher than the GTX 1660 Ti’s is a statistical anomaly, not a sign of competitive performance. If your workload relies on modern compute APIs like OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX 1660 Ti is the only rational choice. The data does not support any scenario where the Quadro K4100M would be a better pick for raw speed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is significantly faster, scoring 51,029 compared to the Quadro K4100M's 9,149, a difference of 82.1%.

Q: How much memory do the two cards have?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the GTX 1660 Ti has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti offers 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is nearly three times the 102.4 GB/s provided by the Quadro K4100M.

Q: Are the architectures different?

A: Yes. The Quadro K4100M is based on the older 28 nm Kepler architecture, while the GTX 1660 Ti uses the newer 12 nm Turing architecture.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro K4100M has a higher average score of 7,906 compared to the GTX 1660 Ti's 7,723, but this is because the GTX 1660 Ti's average includes very low scores in legacy DirectX 9 and 10 tests.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The Quadro K4100M has a TDP of 100 W, while the GTX 1660 Ti has a TDP of 120 W.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1660 Ti wins in virtually every performance category that matters. It wins the compute benchmark by a huge margin. Its memory bandwidth is vastly superior, which benefits high-resolution gaming and data-intensive workloads. Its higher pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s and texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s dwarf the Quadro K4100M's 16.94 GPixel/s and 67.78 GTexel/s. In any modern application, the GTX 1660 Ti is the winner.

The Quadro K4100M has one clear advantage: power consumption. Its 100 W TDP is lower than the GTX 1660 Ti's 120 W. The data also shows it has a higher average benchmark score, but this is a misleading statistic due to the GTX 1660 Ti's poor showing in legacy benchmarks. For a user prioritizing lower power draw above all else, the Quadro K4100M is technically superior, but this is a niche scenario.

Specification Differences

Here are the key specification differences between the two cards, based on the available data:

• Architecture: Kepler (Quadro K4100M) vs. Turing (GTX 1660 Ti).
• Process Node: 28 nm (Quadro K4100M) vs. 12 nm (GTX 1660 Ti).
• Transistors: 3,540 million (Quadro K4100M) vs. 6,600 million (GTX 1660 Ti).
• Die Size: 294 mm² (Quadro K4100M) vs. 284 mm² (GTX 1660 Ti).
• Transistor Density: 12.0M / mm² (Quadro K4100M) vs. 23.2M / mm² (GTX 1660 Ti).
• Base Clock: 706 MHz (Quadro K4100M) vs. 1,500 MHz (GTX 1660 Ti).
• Boost Clock: 706 MHz (Quadro K4100M) vs. 1,770 MHz (GTX 1660 Ti).
• Memory Speed: 3.2 Gbps effective (Quadro K4100M) vs. 12 Gbps effective (GTX 1660 Ti).
• Memory Size: 4 GB (Quadro K4100M) vs. 6 GB (GTX 1660 Ti).
• Memory Type: GDDR5 (Quadro K4100M) vs. GDDR6 (GTX 1660 Ti).
• Memory Bus: 256 bit (Quadro K4100M) vs. 192 bit (GTX 1660 Ti).
• Memory Bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s (Quadro K4100M) vs. 288.0 GB/s (GTX 1660 Ti).
• Shading Units: 1,152 (Quadro K4100M) vs. 1,536 (GTX 1660 Ti).
• ROPs: 32 (Quadro K4100M) vs. 48 (GTX 1660 Ti).
• Pixel Rate: 16.94 GPixel/s (Quadro K4100M) vs. 84.96 GPixel/s (GTX 1660 Ti).
• Texture Rate: 67.78 GTexel/s (Quadro K4100M) vs. 169.9 GTexel/s (GTX 1660 Ti).
• FP32 Performance: 1.627 TFLOPS (Quadro K4100M) vs. 5.437 TFLOPS (GTX 1660 Ti).
• TDP: 100 W (Quadro K4100M) vs. 120 W (GTX 1660 Ti).
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) (Quadro K4100M) vs. PCIe 3.0 x16 (GTX 1660 Ti).
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) (Quadro K4100M) vs. 12 (12_1) (GTX 1660 Ti).
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.175 (Quadro K4100M) vs. 1.4 (GTX 1660 Ti).