NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 represent two very different eras of GPU design, with the former built on Turing architecture and the latter on Maxwell. The benchmark data shows a stark performance chasm between them. In the only two directly comparable tests, the GTX 1660 dominates, delivering over 300% higher scores in both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. This places the GTX 1660 in the 51st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K2200 sits at the 49th percentile. The average benchmark score for the GTX 1660 is 11,680, compared to 10,761 for the Quadro K2200, a difference of roughly 8.5%. These figures make it clear that the GTX 1660 is the superior performer, but the specific strengths and use cases of each card warrant closer examination.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1660 wins every head-to-head benchmark recorded in the data. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1660 scores 47,850 against the Quadro K2200's 11,431, a delta of 318.6%. This massive advantage extends to Vulkan, where the GTX 1660 posts 50,137 versus 10,090, a 396.9% delta. The data shows no test where the Quadro K2200 comes out ahead.

The GTX 1660's advantage is not limited to the direct comparison. Its broader benchmark suite shows strong results across legacy and modern APIs. It scores 177 in Passmark DirectX 9, 79 in DirectX 11, and 49 in DirectX 12. The Quadro K2200 has no corresponding Passmark data in the pack, so its legacy performance cannot be compared. However, the GTX 1660's Passmark G3D score of 11,646 and G2D score of 776 indicate a well-rounded part. Its GPU compute score of 4,963 further underscores its general-purpose strength.

The Quadro K2200's only available benchmarks are the two Geekbench tests, and it loses both decisively. Its OpenCL score of 11,431 is less than a quarter of the GTX 1660's. Its Vulkan score of 10,090 is roughly one-fifth of the GTX 1660's. Given these numbers, the Quadro K2200 has no benchmark wins to claim in this dataset.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is substantial. The GTX 1660 uses the TU116 chip on a 12 nm process from TSMC, while the Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. This process difference contributes to a massive transistor count disparity: the GTX 1660 packs 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². The Quadro K2200 has just 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, with a density of 12.6M per mm².

The GTX 1660 features 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Quadro K2200 is far more modest, with 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. Clock speeds also differ: the GTX 1660 runs at a base of 1530 MHz and boosts to 1785 MHz, while the Quadro K2200 operates at 1046 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Memory configurations vary significantly as well. The GTX 1660 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 192.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with only 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The GTX 1660 achieves 85.68 GPixel/s and 157.1 GTexel/s, versus the Quadro K2200's 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s. Compute performance is similarly lopsided: the GTX 1660 delivers 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Quadro K2200 manages 1,438.7 GFLOPS. The GTX 1660 also supports FP16 at 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1), whereas the Quadro K2200 has no FP16 capability listed. Power consumption favors the Quadro K2200 at 68 W, compared to the GTX 1660's 120 W. The Quadro K2200 is also single-slot with no power connectors, while the GTX 1660 is dual-slot and requires a single 8-pin connector. The bus interface differs too: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 1660 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro K2200.

Both cards support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the GTX 1660 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) while the Quadro K2200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Display outputs also differ: the GTX 1660 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro K2200 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the GTX 1660 is the superior GPU. In the two shared benchmarks, it leads by 318.6% in OpenCL and 396.9% in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 11,680 is 8.5% higher than the Quadro K2200's 10,761. The GTX 1660 also sits at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, versus the 49th percentile for the Quadro K2200.

For users prioritizing raw performance, the GTX 1660 is the clear choice. Its 6 GB of memory, higher bandwidth, and more than double the shading units make it suitable for demanding workloads. The Quadro K2200, by contrast, offers lower power consumption at 68 W and a single-slot form factor, which may appeal to compact builds. However, its performance deficit is too large to recommend for anything beyond light tasks. The GTX 1660's nearest rivals in the data include the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT at a 0.5% delta and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT at a -1.4% delta, showing it is competitive with much newer parts. The Quadro K2200's nearest rivals are closer in score, such as the AMD Radeon Pro 450 at -0.4% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti at 0.7%, but none of these approach the GTX 1660's absolute scores.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1660 has an average benchmark score of 11,680, while the Quadro K2200 has 10,761.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan?

A: The GTX 1660 scores 50,137 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 396.9% higher than the Quadro K2200's 10,090.

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

A: The GTX 1660 has 6 GB of GDDR5 with a 192-bit bus and 192.1 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The Quadro K2200 has a TDP of 68 W, compared to the GTX 1660's 120 W.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Both support DirectX 12, but the GTX 1660 supports 12_1 while the Quadro K2200 is limited to 11_0.

Q: What is the transistor count of each chip?

A: The GTX 1660 uses 6,600 million transistors, while the Quadro K2200 uses 1,870 million.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two direct comparisons available are the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests, and the GTX 1660 wins both by enormous margins. In OpenCL, the GTX 1660 scores 47,850 against the Quadro K2200's 11,431. This 318.6% delta means the GTX 1660 is over four times faster in this compute workload. The gap is even wider in Vulkan, where the GTX 1660 posts 50,137 versus 10,090, a 396.9% delta. That is roughly five times the performance of the Quadro K2200.

These results align with the architectural differences. The GTX 1660's 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 compute dwarfs the Quadro K2200's 1,438.7 GFLOPS. The GTX 1660 also has 1408 shading units versus 640, and a texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is another factor: 192.1 GB/s against 80.19 GB/s. The GTX 1660's boost clock of 1785 MHz is substantially higher than the Quadro K2200's 1124 MHz.

The Quadro K2200 does have one advantage in the data: its 68 W TDP is nearly half the GTX 1660's 120 W. It also runs on a single slot with no power connectors, while the GTX 1660 needs a dual-slot design and an 8-pin connector. However, these power and form factor benefits do not translate into competitive performance. In the nearestRivals data, the Quadro K2200's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro 450 at -0.4% delta, while the GTX 1660's closest is the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT at 0.5%. The GTX 1660 is competitive with much more recent hardware, whereas the Quadro K2200 is comparable to much older parts like the GTX 560 Ti. The data clearly favors the GTX 1660 in every measurable performance metric.