NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and the GeForce GTX 1660 represent two very different eras of NVIDIA’s GPU design. The Quadro K4200 is a Kepler-generation workstation card from 2014, while the GTX 1660 is a Turing-generation consumer card from 2019. Benchmark data from the FACT PACK shows a decisive performance gap between the two, with the GTX 1660 dominating both shared tests. However, the K4200’s profile as a professional-grade product with specific display outputs and a single-slot design still holds relevance in certain contexts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards share only two benchmark results in the FACT PACK: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the GeForce GTX 1660 wins by a very large margin. The most extreme difference appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the GTX 1660 scores 50,137 versus the Quadro K4200’s 12,482. This translates to a deltaPct of -75.1% for the K4200, meaning the Quadro scores roughly one-quarter of the GTX 1660’s result. The OpenCL test shows a similar pattern: the GTX 1660 achieves 47,850 points, while the K4200 manages 12,313, a deltaPct of -74.3%.

These deltas are not trivial. A 74-75% deficit in raw compute performance puts the K4200 in a completely different performance class. To put it in perspective, the K4200’s average benchmark score across all its tests is 12,398, while the GTX 1660’s average is 11,680. Interestingly, the GTX 1660’s average is actually lower than its Geekbench scores, suggesting that its other benchmarks (like Passmark tests) pull the average down. The K4200’s average is tightly clustered around its two Geekbench scores.

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep: winsA is 0, winsB is 2. The GTX 1660 wins every shared benchmark by roughly 3.9x in OpenCL and 4.0x in Vulkan. There is no test in the FACT PACK where the K4200 comes out ahead. Even the K4200’s nearest rivals in the percentile rankings—such as the Tesla K20Xm at 12,625 and the GTX 670 at 12,773—only beat it by 1.8% and 2.9% respectively. The GTX 1660, by contrast, sits near the Radeon RX 7800 XT (0.5% slower) and the Radeon RX 6500 XT (1.4% faster) in its own nearest rival list.

Where Each One Wins

Looking strictly at the data, the GeForce GTX 1660 wins every benchmark category where both cards have results. Its two Geekbench scores are not just higher; they are dramatically higher. The 50,137 Vulkan score and 47,850 OpenCL score indicate strong compute performance for modern API workloads. The GTX 1660 also has a broader benchmark portfolio in the FACT PACK, including Passmark DirectX 9/10/11/12 tests, a G2D score of 776, a G3D score of 11,646, and a GPU compute score of 4,963. These additional results show the GTX 1660 handles legacy DirectX APIs (with a DirectX 9 score of 177) and modern ones (DirectX 12 score of 49) across a wide range of scenarios.

The Quadro K4200, on the other hand, has no wins in any benchmark. Its only two scores—12,313 OpenCL and 12,482 Vulkan—place it in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, just above the GTX 1660’s 51st percentile. However, that percentile ranking is misleading because the GTX 1660’s additional benchmarks include lower-scoring tests like Passmark DirectX 10 (61 points) and DirectX 11 (79 points), which drag its average down. The K4200’s narrow benchmark set inflates its percentile relative to its actual head-to-head performance.

For use-case splitting, the data suggests the GTX 1660 is the choice for any workload that uses OpenCL or Vulkan—the two areas measured in the head-to-head. The K4200’s workstation heritage (as a Quadro product) might imply advantages in professional applications, but the FACT PACK provides no benchmark data to support that. What the data does show is that the K4200 has a single-slot design and 1x DVI plus 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it a fit for dense multi-GPU systems or specific display configurations. The GTX 1660, with its dual-slot design and 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, offers more modern display connectivity.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is the primary driver of the performance difference. The K4200 uses the GK104 chip on the Kepler architecture, built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. The GTX 1660 uses the TU116 chip on the Turing architecture, built on TSMC’s 12 nm process. The process node shrink from 28 nm to 12 nm is significant, but the die sizes are similar: the K4200’s die measures 294 mm², while the GTX 1660’s is 284 mm². The transistor counts tell the real story: the K4200 packs 3,540 million transistors, while the GTX 1660 has 6,600 million. That is nearly double the transistor count in a slightly smaller die, yielding a transistor density of 23.2M per mm² for the GTX 1660 versus 12.0M per mm² for the K4200.

Clock speeds also favor the GTX 1660 heavily. The K4200 runs at a base of 771 MHz and a boost of 784 MHz. The GTX 1660 starts at 1,530 MHz base and boosts to 1,785 MHz. That is roughly a 2x difference in clock frequency alone. Memory clocks tell a similar story: the K4200’s memory runs at 1,350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), while the GTX 1660’s runs at 2,001 MHz (8 Gbps effective).

The memory subsystems differ in capacity and bandwidth. The K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1660 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 192.1 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the GTX 1660 achieves higher bandwidth thanks to faster memory clocks. The GTX 1660 also has more shading units (1,408 vs 1,344), but fewer TMUs (88 vs 112). The ROP count favors the GTX 1660 at 48 versus 32.

The compute outputs are starkly different. The K4200 delivers 2.107 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GTX 1660 delivers 5.027 TFLOPS—more than double. The GTX 1660 also lists FP16 performance at 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1), while the K4200 has no FP16 figure in the FACT PACK. Pixel rate and texture rate follow the same trend: the GTX 1660 produces 85.68 GPixel/s and 157.1 GTexel/s, versus the K4200’s 21.95 GPixel/s and 87.81 GTexel/s.

API support also differs. The K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 1660 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer DirectX 12_1 feature level and higher Vulkan version on the GTX 1660 reflect its newer architecture. The bus interface also differs: the K4200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GTX 1660 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Power consumption is close but not equal: the K4200 has a TDP of 108 W with a 1x 6-pin connector, while the GTX 1660 has a TDP of 120 W with a 1x 8-pin connector. Both suggest a 300 W PSU. The physical dimensions are similar in length (241 mm vs 229 mm) and height (111 mm for both), but the GTX 1660 is thicker at 35 mm, making it a dual-slot card versus the K4200’s single-slot design.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the GeForce GTX 1660 outperforms the Quadro K4200 in every shared benchmark by a factor of roughly four. The GTX 1660’s 5.027 TFLOPS FP32 compute is more than double the K4200’s 2.107 TFLOPS, and its memory bandwidth is higher despite a narrower bus. The GTX 1660 also supports newer APIs, has more memory (6 GB vs 4 GB), and runs at substantially higher clock speeds.

Who should pick the Quadro K4200? Based strictly on the FACT PACK, the only advantages are its single-slot design and its display output configuration (1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2). For a system requiring a low-profile, single-slot card with workstation-grade build, the K4200 might fit a niche. Its 108 W TDP is slightly lower than the GTX 1660’s 120 W. But in terms of raw performance, the K4200 is 74-75% behind the GTX 1660 in both Geekbench tests, and it has no benchmark where it wins.

Who should pick the GeForce GTX 1660? Anyone needing compute performance. The GTX 1660’s Geekbench OpenCL score of 47,850 and Vulkan score of 50,137 are roughly four times higher than the K4200’s. Its Passmark G3D score of 11,646 and GPU compute score of 4,963 add further evidence of balanced performance. The GTX 1660 also offers modern display outputs (HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.4a) and a higher Vulkan API version (1.4). The launch MSRP of 219 USD is the only pricing data available, and the card’s end-of-life status suggests it is a legacy purchase.

The percentile rankings are close—52nd for the K4200 and 51st for the GTX 1660—but this reflects the different benchmark sets. The head-to-head data is the only fair comparison, and it shows a complete victory for the GTX 1660. For any workload measured by OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX 1660 is the clear choice.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 wins with a score of 47,850, versus the Quadro K4200’s 12,313. The deltaPct is -74.3% for the K4200.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 compute performance?

A: The GTX 1660 delivers 5.027 TFLOPS, while the K4200 delivers 2.107 TFLOPS. The GTX 1660 also lists FP16 performance at 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1), while the K4200 has no FP16 figure.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The K4200 has 172.8 GB/s on a 256-bit bus, while the GTX 1660 has 192.1 GB/s on a 192-bit bus. The GTX 1660 achieves higher bandwidth despite the narrower bus due to faster memory clocks (8 Gbps effective vs 5.4 Gbps).

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the GTX 1660 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 1660 supports Vulkan 1.4 versus the K4200’s 1.2.175.

Q: What are the transistor counts and process nodes?

A: The K4200 uses 3,540 million transistors on a 28 nm process, while the GTX 1660 uses 6,600 million transistors on a 12 nm process. The GTX 1660’s die is slightly smaller (284 mm² vs 294 mm²), giving it a higher transistor density of 23.2M per mm² versus 12.0M.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The GTX 1660 runs at 1,530 MHz base and 1,785 MHz boost, while the K4200 runs at 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost. The GTX 1660’s memory clock is 2,001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1,350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) on the K4200.