NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a decisive one. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 scores 47,850 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M manages 11,771 points. That is a 306.5% difference in favor of the GTX 1660, which means the newer card outperforms the older mobile workstation part by a factor of roughly four in this compute-oriented test. No other head-to-head test is recorded, so this single data point carries the entire comparative weight.

Looking at the broader database averages, the GTX 1660 sits at an average benchmark score of 11,680, while the Quadro K5100M averages 10,043. That puts the GTX 1660 about 16% higher in aggregate performance. The GTX 1660 also ranks in the 51st percentile among all GPUs, whereas the Quadro K5100M lands in the 48th percentile. These are not far apart in percentile terms, which suggests that while the GTX 1660 leads in raw compute, the Quadro may hold its own in certain niche workloads that the average score does not fully capture.

The GTX 1660's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (0.5% higher average score), the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (1.3% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (1.4% higher), and the NVIDIA Tesla K20c (1.8% lower). For the Quadro K5100M, the closest competitors are the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (0.3% lower), the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (0.3% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (0.8% higher), and the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (2% higher). The delta percentages are small in both cases, which means each card is tightly clustered with its direct peers. The GTX 1660's commanding OpenCL lead over the Quadro is therefore not a reflection of the Quadro being an outlier at the bottom of its class; rather, the GTX 1660 is simply operating in a different performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations. The GeForce GTX 1660 uses the TU116 chip built on the Turing architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 12 nm process. The Quadro K5100M uses the GK104 chip based on the much older Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference alone explains a great deal of the performance gap: the GTX 1660 crams 6,600 million transistors into a 284 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.2 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K5100M has 3,540 million transistors on a slightly larger 294 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 12.0 million per square millimeter. The GTX 1660 packs nearly twice the transistors into a smaller physical area.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The GTX 1660 runs at a 1530 MHz base clock and boosts to 1785 MHz. The Quadro K5100M is locked at 771 MHz for both base and boost, which is less than half the boost clock of the GTX 1660. Memory clocks also differ substantially: the GTX 1660 uses 2001 MHz memory with 8 Gbps effective data rate, while the Quadro K5100M runs at 900 MHz with 3.6 Gbps effective. The GTX 1660's memory bus is narrower at 192 bit versus 256 bit, but the higher clock speed yields 192.1 GB/s of bandwidth compared to 115.2 GB/s for the Quadro. The Quadro does have more memory capacity at 8 GB versus 6 GB, and both use GDDR5, but the GTX 1660's bandwidth advantage is considerable.

Shader resources are surprisingly close in raw count. The GTX 1660 has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The Quadro K5100M has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro actually has more shading units and more TMUs, yet it delivers far lower throughput. The GTX 1660 achieves 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 10.05 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro manages only 2.369 TFLOPS of FP32 and no FP16 support at all. Pixel rate is 85.68 GPixel/s for the GTX 1660 versus 24.67 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and texture rate is 157.1 GTexel/s versus 98.69 GTexel/s. The architecture efficiency difference is stark: the Kepler design cannot extract competitive throughput from its larger shader count because its clocks are so much lower and its instruction pipeline is older.

API support also separates the two. The GTX 1660 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro K5100M supports DirectX 12 but only at the 11_0 feature level, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 1660 has access to newer rendering features, which matters for modern games and applications that rely on DirectX 12 Ultimate or newer Vulkan extensions. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner: the GeForce GTX 1660. Its 306.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is overwhelming, and its higher average benchmark score, higher percentile ranking, faster clocks, newer architecture, and superior memory bandwidth all reinforce that conclusion. The Quadro K5100M is not without merit, but its strengths are limited to specific areas that the recorded benchmarks do not directly measure. The GTX 1660 is the better choice for anyone prioritizing compute performance, modern API support, and raw throughput.

However, the Quadro K5100M has one meaningful advantage: 8 GB of memory versus 6 GB. For workloads that require large framebuffers or datasets that exceed 6 GB, the Quadro could be the more practical option despite its lower speed. The Quadro also draws less power at 100 W versus 120 W, and it uses an MXM module form factor with no power connectors, which makes it suitable for laptops or compact systems where the GTX 1660's dual-slot, 1x 8-pin power requirement would be impractical. The GTX 1660 requires a 300 W suggested PSU, while the Quadro has no such requirement listed.

For desktop users building a gaming or general-purpose machine, the GTX 1660 is unequivocally the stronger product. For mobile workstation users who need more VRAM and can tolerate lower compute throughput, the Quadro K5100M remains a viable option. The production status of both is end-of-life, so neither is a future-proof investment, but the GTX 1660 is the more capable part in almost every measurable way.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GeForce GTX 1660 than the Quadro K5100M in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 1660 scores 47,850 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 11,771 for the Quadro K5100M, a 306.5% difference.

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The Quadro K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 1660 has 6 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The GTX 1660 achieves 192.1 GB/s over a 192 bit bus, while the Quadro K5100M achieves 115.2 GB/s over a 256 bit bus.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different feature levels. The GTX 1660 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the Quadro K5100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 throughput?

A: The GTX 1660 delivers 5.027 TFLOPS, more than double the Quadro K5100M's 2.369 TFLOPS.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The GTX 1660 has a TDP of 120 W, while the Quadro K5100M has a TDP of 100 W.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 1660 wins in compute performance by a massive margin. The OpenCL score of 47,850 versus 11,771 is the defining statistic. It also wins on memory bandwidth (192.1 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s), pixel rate (85.68 GPixel/s versus 24.67 GPixel/s), texture rate (157.1 GTexel/s versus 98.69 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (5.027 TFLOPS versus 2.369 TFLOPS). It has a higher boost clock (1785 MHz versus 771 MHz), a smaller process node (12 nm versus 28 nm), and newer architecture (Turing versus Kepler). It supports newer DirectX feature levels and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175.

The Quadro K5100M wins on memory capacity with 8 GB versus 6 GB. It also has a wider memory bus at 256 bit versus 192 bit, although the effective bandwidth is lower. It consumes less power at 100 W versus 120 W, and its MXM module form factor with no power connectors makes it more adaptable to mobile or compact systems. The GTX 1660's dual-slot design and 1x 8-pin connector require more physical space and a 300 W PSU recommendation. The Quadro also has more shading units (1,536 versus 1,408) and more TMUs (128 versus 88), though those advantages do not translate into better real-world performance in the recorded benchmarks.

For gaming, content creation, or general desktop compute, the GTX 1660 is the obvious pick. For a laptop upgrade or a workstation requiring maximum VRAM in a low-power MXM package, the Quadro K5100M has a place. The average benchmark score difference (11,680 versus 10,043) is modest, but the OpenCL gap shows the GTX 1660 is in a different league for compute-heavy tasks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | GeForce GTX 1660 | Quadro K5100M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Turing | Kepler |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 6,600 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 284 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.2M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1530 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1785 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.1 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1408 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 88 | 128 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 85.68 GPixel/s | 24.67 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 157.1 GTexel/s | 98.69 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.027 TFLOPS | 2.369 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1) | null |

| TDP | 120 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Launch MSRP | 219 USD | null |