NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 in the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1660 scores 47,850 points against the Quadro K5000's 11,418 points. This represents a 319.1% advantage, meaning the GTX 1660 delivers more than four times the compute performance in this workload. The margin is substantial and places the two cards in entirely different performance tiers.

The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan. Here, the GTX 1660 records 50,137 points, while the Quadro K5000 manages only 11,169 points. The delta expands to 348.9% in favor of the GTX 1660. This is notable because Vulkan is a modern low-level graphics API, and the GTX 1660's architecture handles it far more efficiently. The Quadro K5000's older Kepler design, with its limited Vulkan support (version 1.2.175 versus 1.4 on the GTX 1660), is clearly at a disadvantage in this test.

The head-to-head tally stands at 2 wins for the GTX 1660 and 0 for the Quadro K5000. There are no benchmark categories where the Quadro comes out ahead. The average benchmark score reinforces this trend: the GTX 1660 sits at 11,680 points, while the Quadro K5000 averages 9,637 points. That is a 21.2% overall advantage for the GTX 1660 across all recorded tests, not just the shared ones.

It is worth remembering the Quadro K5000 does have a Geekbench Metal score of 6,324, a test that the GTX 1660 does not appear in. However, this does not change the head-to-head outcome, as Metal is not a cross-platform test shared by both cards. The data available for direct comparison is unambiguous: the GTX 1660 wins both shared tests by margins exceeding 300%.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1660 wins in every shared benchmark category. Its strengths are most pronounced in compute-oriented workloads. The Geekbench OpenCL result of 47,850 points indicates strong general-purpose compute performance, likely benefiting from the higher FP32 throughput of 5.027 TFLOPS. The Quadro K5000's FP32 rate is only 2.169 TFLOPS, so the GTX 1660 has more than double the raw floating-point capability.

In Vulkan, the GTX 1660's 50,137 points versus 11,169 for the Quadro K5000 shows a clear advantage in modern graphics API efficiency. The GTX 1660 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K5000 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. This API version gap, combined with the architectural differences, explains the 348.9% delta.

The Quadro K5000 does not win any of the recorded benchmark categories. Its only unique result is the Geekbench Metal score of 6,324, but there is no comparable Metal score for the GTX 1660 in the database, so this cannot be framed as a win. In terms of use-case splits, the GTX 1660 is the better choice for any workload covered by the recorded tests: compute, modern graphics APIs, and general 3D rendering. The Quadro K5000's only potential advantage lies in its professional driver certification and display outputs (2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), but benchmark performance does not favor it in any recorded test.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations. The GTX 1660 is built on the Turing architecture with the TU116 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 6,600 million transistors into a 284 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.2 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K5000 uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of only 12.0 million per square millimeter. The process node advantage gives the GTX 1660 a 2.33x higher transistor density despite a slightly smaller die.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The GTX 1660 has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz. The Quadro K5000 runs at a fixed 706 MHz for both base and boost. This clock speed gap, combined with the architecture improvements, drives the large performance differences. The memory clocks also differ: the GTX 1660 uses 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) GDDR5, while the Quadro K5000 uses 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) GDDR5.

Memory configurations are distinct. The GTX 1660 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 192.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K5000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, but achieves only 172.8 GB/s due to the lower clock speed. The GTX 1660 wins on both capacity and bandwidth.

Compute resources favor the GTX 1660 in raw throughput. It has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Quadro K5000 has more shading units at 1,536, more TMUs at 128, but fewer ROPs at 32. Despite having more shading units, the Quadro K5000's lower clocks and older architecture result in much lower fill rates: 22.59 GPixel/s pixel rate and 90.37 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 85.68 GPixel/s and 157.1 GTexel/s for the GTX 1660.

The GTX 1660 supports FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, reaching 10.05 TFLOPS, while the Quadro K5000 has no recorded FP16 capability. Both cards lack ray tracing and tensor cores. The GTX 1660 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro K5000 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16. The GTX 1660 also has a smaller footprint at 229 mm length versus 267 mm for the Quadro, and uses a single 8-pin power connector versus the Quadro's 6-pin. Both are dual-slot cards with a 300 W suggested PSU, and their TDPs are nearly identical at 120 W for the GTX 1660 and 122 W for the Quadro K5000.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 1660 delivers 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Quadro K5000 provides 2.169 TFLOPS. The GTX 1660 is more than 2.3x faster in this metric.

Q: Do these cards support modern graphics APIs?

A: The GTX 1660 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro K5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 1660 has a higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version.

Q: How do their memory specifications compare?

A: The GTX 1660 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 192.1 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K5000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1660 offers more capacity and higher bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The GTX 1660 has a density of 23.2 million transistors per square millimeter on a 12 nm process. The Quadro K5000 has 12.0 million per square millimeter on a 28 nm process. The GTX 1660's density is nearly double.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1660 averages 11,680 points across all recorded benchmarks. The Quadro K5000 averages 9,637 points. The GTX 1660 is about 21.2% higher in average score.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Quadro K5000 wins?

A: No. In the two shared benchmark tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the GTX 1660 wins both. The Quadro K5000 has a unique Geekbench Metal score of 6,324, but there is no comparable Metal score for the GTX 1660 in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660. In every shared benchmark, it outperforms the Quadro K5000 by a massive margin, with deltas of 319.1% in OpenCL and 348.9% in Vulkan. The GTX 1660 also holds advantages in average benchmark score (11,680 versus 9,637), memory capacity (6 GB versus 4 GB), bandwidth (192.1 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s), FP32 compute (5.027 TFLOPS versus 2.169 TFLOPS), and process node (12 nm versus 28 nm).

The Quadro K5000's only redeeming qualities are its professional display outputs (2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2) and its higher shading unit count (1,536 versus 1,408), but these do not translate into better benchmark results. Its PCIe 2.0 interface and older Kepler architecture place it at a fundamental disadvantage.

For anyone choosing between these two cards based on recorded benchmark data, the GTX 1660 is the superior option. It offers more memory, faster compute, better API support, and significantly higher scores in all tests where both are measured. The Quadro K5000, despite its professional branding, cannot compete with the GTX 1660's modern architecture and performance headroom. The percentile ranking also favors the GTX 1660, which sits at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, versus the Quadro K5000's 46th percentile. The verdict is unambiguous: choose the GTX 1660 for any workload covered by these benchmarks.