NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 and NVIDIA Quadro M2000M represent two very different points in NVIDIA’s product timeline, one aimed at the consumer desktop market and the other at professional mobile workstations. The recorded data shows a clear performance gulf between them, but the comparison is not just about raw speed; it also reveals shifts in architecture, memory design, and intended use cases. The GeForce GTX 1660, built on the Turing architecture with a 12 nm process, is a far newer and larger chip, while the Quadro M2000M, based on Maxwell and a 28 nm process, is an older, smaller mobile part. The benchmark results, particularly in Geekbench, show the GTX 1660 pulling far ahead, but the Quadro’s positioning in the database’s percentile rankings tells a more nuanced story about where each GPU sits relative to its own contemporaries.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 than the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The GeForce GTX 1660 scores 47,850 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro M2000M scores 10,057. This gives the GTX 1660 a 375.8% advantage in that test.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score, and by how much?

A: The GeForce GTX 1660 has an average benchmark score of 11,680, compared to the Quadro M2000M’s 9,832. The database shows the GTX 1660’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT, is only 0.5% away, while the Quadro M2000M sits very close to the NVIDIA Quadro 6000, which is 0.1% behind it.

Q: What is the difference in transistor density between the two chips?

A: The GTX 1660’s TU116 chip has a transistor density of 23.2 million transistors per mm², while the Quadro M2000M’s GM107 chip has a density of 12.6 million per mm². This reflects the newer 12 nm process for the GTX 1660 versus the 28 nm process for the Quadro.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GeForce GTX 1660 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro M2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The GTX 1660 has a higher feature level in this regard.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate, and what does that imply?

A: The GeForce GTX 1660 has a pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s, compared to the Quadro M2000M’s 18.19 GPixel/s. This suggests the GTX 1660 can handle fill-rate-heavy workloads, such as high-resolution rendering, much more effectively.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Vulkan performance?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the GeForce GTX 1660 scores 50,137, versus 9,606 for the Quadro M2000M. The GTX 1660 leads by 421.9% in this test.

Architecture Differences

The GeForce GTX 1660 uses the TU116 chip, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, with 6,600 million transistors on a die size of 284 mm². The Quadro M2000M uses the GM107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The node shrink gives the GTX 1660 a significant density advantage: 23.2 million transistors per mm² versus 12.6 million for the Quadro. This is a core architectural leap, moving from Maxwell to Turing, which brings changes in scheduling and feature support.

The GTX 1660 features 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 raster output units (ROPs). The Quadro M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. The GTX 1660 also has a much higher clock speed, with a base of 1530 MHz and boost of 1785 MHz, compared to the Quadro’s base of 1098 MHz and boost of 1137 MHz. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so the Turing advantage here is not about those features. Instead, the GTX 1660’s compute throughput is substantially higher: it delivers 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Quadro delivers 1,455.4 GFLOPS. The GTX 1660 also supports FP16 at 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1), while the Quadro has no FP16 capability listed.

Memory architecture also differs sharply. The GTX 1660 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 192.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1660’s memory clock is 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective), versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the Quadro. The GTX 1660 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro uses an MXM-A (3.0) module interface, reflecting its mobile workstation design. The GTX 1660 also has a TDP of 120 W and requires a 1x 8-pin power connector, whereas the Quadro’s TDP is 55 W with no power connectors, as it is designed for portable devices.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two head-to-head benchmarks in the database are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the GeForce GTX 1660 wins both decisively. In OpenCL, the GTX 1660 scores 47,850 against the Quadro’s 10,057, a delta of 375.8%. In Vulkan, the GTX 1660 scores 50,137 versus 9,606, a delta of 421.9%. These are not marginal differences; the GTX 1660 is roughly four to five times faster in these compute-oriented tests.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the GTX 1660 has results across a wide range of tests, including Passmark DirectX 9 (177), DirectX 10 (61), DirectX 11 (79), DirectX 12 (49), G2D (776), G3D (11,646), and GPU Compute (4,963). It also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,065. The Quadro M2000M, by contrast, only has the two Geekbench results in the database. This lack of data for the Quadro makes direct comparisons in other APIs impossible, but the available data strongly suggests the GTX 1660 is the more capable compute and graphics part.

The GTX 1660’s average benchmark score of 11,680 places it at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro’s average of 9,832 places it at the 47th percentile. The GTX 1660’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT, which is only 0.5% ahead, and the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is 1.3% behind. The Quadro’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro 6000, which is 0.1% behind, and the AMD FirePro W5000 is 0.3% ahead. This shows that while the GTX 1660 is competing with modern mid-range parts, the Quadro is clustered with older professional GPUs.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in almost every measurable specification. The process node is 12 nm for the GTX 1660 versus 28 nm for the Quadro. Transistor count is 6,600 million versus 1,870 million, and die size is 284 mm² versus 148 mm². The GTX 1660 has more shading units (1,408 vs 640), more TMUs (88 vs 40), and more ROPs (48 vs 16). Clock speeds are higher on the GTX 1660, with a base of 1530 MHz versus 1098 MHz, and a boost of 1785 MHz versus 1137 MHz.

Memory is another clear divide: 6 GB versus 4 GB, 192-bit versus 128-bit bus, and 192.1 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1660’s FP32 compute is 5.027 TFLOPS, while the Quadro’s is 1,455.4 GFLOPS. The GTX 1660 has a TDP of 120 W, while the Quadro is rated at 55 W. The GTX 1660 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus and has display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the Quadro uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus and its display outputs are described as portable device dependent. The GTX 1660 also has a dual-slot form factor and is 229 mm long, while the Quadro is an MXM module with no listed dimensions.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for raw performance: the GeForce GTX 1660 is the far stronger GPU. Its OpenCL score is 375.8% higher, and its Vulkan score is 421.9% higher than the Quadro M2000M. The GTX 1660 also has a higher average benchmark score, a higher percentile ranking, and a newer architecture with more transistors, more shading units, and faster memory. Anyone looking for compute or graphics throughput should choose the GTX 1660 based on these measurements.

The Quadro M2000M, however, is not without its own context. It is a mobile workstation part with a 55 W TDP, no power connectors, and an MXM form factor, which makes it suitable for laptops where power and space are constrained. Its average benchmark score of 9,832 is close to rivals like the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and AMD FirePro W5000, indicating it is competitive within its own generation. But against the GTX 1660, it is simply outclassed in every benchmark where data exists. The GTX 1660 wins both head-to-head tests, and the Quadro has no recorded wins in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 1660 wins in every scenario where performance is the primary criterion. It excels in compute-heavy workloads, as shown by its OpenCL and Vulkan results, and it has a much higher pixel rate (85.68 GPixel/s vs 18.19 GPixel/s) and texture rate (157.1 GTexel/s vs 45.48 GTexel/s). Its 6 GB of memory and 192-bit bus provide more bandwidth, making it better suited for modern games and general-purpose GPU tasks. The GTX 1660’s higher transistor count and newer architecture give it advantages in feature support, such as DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0).

The Quadro M2000M wins in the specific niche of low-power mobile workstations. Its 55 W TDP is less than half of the GTX 1660’s 120 W, and it requires no external power connectors, making it easier to integrate into portable devices. Its MXM-A (3.0) interface is designed for that form factor, and its smaller die size and transistor count mean it generates less heat. For a laptop that needs basic professional graphics capability without the power draw of a desktop-class GPU, the Quadro M2000M has a role. But the benchmark data shows that role is limited: it has no wins in any head-to-head comparison, and its only scores are far below the GTX 1660’s. The GTX 1660 is the clear choice for anyone who values performance, while the Quadro only makes sense in a strictly power-constrained mobile context.