GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records a single shared test between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 and the NVIDIA Quadro 6000: Geekbench OpenCL. This is a decisive result. The GTX 1660 scores 47,850, while the Quadro 6000 scores 9,846. That represents a 386% advantage for the GTX 1660, a dominant margin that leaves little ambiguity about compute throughput in this synthetic workload.

Context from the database places this win firmly on the side of the newer card. The GTX 1660's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 11,680, while the Quadro 6000's average is 9,846. The GTX 1660 also sits at the 51st percentile among all GPUs, slightly above the median, whereas the Quadro 6000 sits at the 47th percentile. The GTX 1660 is not merely ahead in one test; its overall recorded profile is stronger.

The head-to-head delta is worth pausing on. A 386% gap in a compute-oriented benchmark like OpenCL suggests the two cards are from different eras of GPU design. The GTX 1660's FP32 throughput is listed at 5.027 TFLOPS, while the Quadro 6000 is listed at 1,027.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.03 TFLOPS). Those figures are consistent with the observed benchmark gap. The GTX 1660 also posts a pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s for the Quadro 6000, and a texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. Every raw throughput metric in the database points in the same direction.

The Quadro 6000 does have one hardware characteristic that might suggest competitiveness: a 384-bit memory bus versus 192-bit for the GTX 1660. But the effective bandwidth tells a different story. The GTX 1660 delivers 192.1 GB/s, while the Quadro 6000 delivers 143.4 GB/s. The wider bus on the older card does not compensate for its lower memory clock. The GTX 1660's memory runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the Quadro 6000 runs at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective). More than a 2.6x memory clock advantage for the GTX 1660 outweighs the Quadro's wider bus.

FAQ

Q: Which card scores higher in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 scores 47,850, versus 9,846 for the NVIDIA Quadro 6000. That is a 386% advantage for the GTX 1660.

Q: How do the two cards compare on overall average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1660 has an average benchmark score of 11,680 across all recorded tests. The Quadro 6000 has an average of 9,846, based on its single recorded test.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The GTX 1660 has 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. The Quadro 6000 has 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The GTX 1660 has more than twice as many transistors on a die roughly half the size.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both have 6 GB of GDDR5 memory. However, the GTX 1660 has a 192-bit bus with 192.1 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 6000 has a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 1660 has a pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s, compared to 16.07 GPixel/s for the Quadro 6000. The GTX 1660 is more than 5 times higher in pixel output.

Q: What API support differs between the two?

A: The GTX 1660 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on architectures that are several generations apart. The GTX 1660 uses the Turing architecture with the TU116 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 6000 uses the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node alone explains much of the performance and efficiency gap: 12 nm versus 40 nm is a 3.3x difference in lithographic feature size.

Transistor density tells the same story. The GTX 1660 packs 6,600 million transistors into a 284 mm² die, yielding a density of 23.2 million transistors per mm². The Quadro 6000 packs 3,100 million transistors into a larger 529 mm² die, yielding only 5.9 million per mm². The GTX 1660 has 2.1 times the transistor count in a die that is half the area. That density advantage is a direct consequence of the newer process node.

The shading hardware is also radically different. The GTX 1660 has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Both have the same ROP count, but the GTX 1660 has 3.1 times the shading units and 1.6 times the texture mapping units. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both rely on traditional rasterization and compute.

The memory architecture reflects a different design philosophy. The Quadro 6000 uses a 384-bit bus to achieve 143.4 GB/s, while the GTX 1660 uses a 192-bit bus to achieve 192.1 GB/s. The GTX 1660 gets more bandwidth from a narrower bus by running its memory at a much higher clock: 2001 MHz versus 747 MHz. This is a classic generational shift: newer memory technology and higher clocks replace wider buses.

Specification Differences

The GTX 1660 runs at a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz. The Quadro 6000 has no base or boost clock listed in the database. The GTX 1660's FP32 compute is 5.027 TFLOPS, while the Quadro 6000 is 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The GTX 1660 also lists FP16 at 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1), while the Quadro 6000 has no FP16 listed.

Power draw differs substantially. The GTX 1660 has a TDP of 120 W and requires a single 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Quadro 6000 has a TDP of 204 W, requires a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, and suggests a 550 W PSU. The GTX 1660 delivers far more compute per watt.

The bus interface also differs: the GTX 1660 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 6000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. For display outputs, the GTX 1660 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Quadro 6000 has 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video. The GTX 1660 is physically shorter at 229 mm, versus 248 mm for the Quadro 6000. Both are dual-slot and both are 111 mm tall.

The release dates are far apart. The GTX 1660 was released in March 2019, while the Quadro 6000 was released in December 2010. The GTX 1660 lists a launch MSRP of 219 USD; the Quadro 6000 lists a launch MSRP of 4,399 USD. Both are end-of-life products. The GTX 1660's predecessor is GeForce 10, and its successor is GeForce 20. The Quadro 6000's predecessor is Quadro FX Tesla, and its successor is Quadro Kepler.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for general compute and graphics performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660. It wins the only shared benchmark by 386%, has a higher average benchmark score (11,680 versus 9,846), sits at a higher percentile (51st versus 47th), and produces higher pixel, texture, and memory bandwidth numbers. The GTX 1660 also does it with a lower TDP (120 W versus 204 W) and a smaller physical footprint.

The Quadro 6000 is listed with a higher launch MSRP (4,399 USD versus 219 USD), but the database records no benchmark where it outperforms the GTX 1660. The Quadro 6000's wider 384-bit memory bus is the only specification advantage it holds, but that does not translate into higher bandwidth. The GTX 1660's 192.1 GB/s exceeds the Quadro's 143.4 GB/s despite having half the bus width.

For anyone choosing between these two based on the recorded data, the GTX 1660 is the stronger card in every measurable category. The Quadro 6000's only unique features are its older S-Video output and its dual DisplayPort configuration, which may matter for legacy display setups, but not for computational performance.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1660 wins in all compute scenarios. Its FP32 output of 5.027 TFLOPS is roughly five times the Quadro 6000's 1,027.7 GFLOPS. Its texture rate (157.1 GTexel/s) is 4.9 times higher. Its pixel rate (85.68 GPixel/s) is 5.3 times higher. In the OpenCL benchmark, the only direct comparison, it leads by 386%. The GTX 1660 also has Vulkan 1.4 support, while the Quadro 6000 has none.

The Quadro 6000 wins in terms of memory bus width (384-bit versus 192-bit), but that does not translate to bandwidth superiority. It also has double the DisplayPort outputs (2 versus 1), plus an S-Video output, which may be relevant for certain display environments. Its shorter length (229 mm versus 248 mm) is not an advantage; the GTX 1660 is actually shorter. The Quadro 6000 has a higher TDP (204 W versus 120 W), which is not a win for it.

In practical terms, the GTX 1660 is the card for any workload involving modern games, DirectX 12 features, Vulkan, or general GPU compute. The Quadro 6000 is only preferable for those who specifically need the combination of dual DisplayPort and S-Video outputs, or who require a 384-bit memory interface for a legacy application that specifically benefits from that bus width. The benchmark data does not show any performance scenario where the Quadro 6000 comes out ahead.