NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two NVIDIA cards almost perfectly down the middle, with each claiming five benchmark wins. The GeForce GTX 1660 dominates the modern compute and API-level workloads, while the Quadro P4000 takes the legacy DirectX and 2D-oriented tests. This is not a case of one card being uniformly faster; it is a case of two cards with different design priorities, and the benchmark suite reflects that.

The GTX 1660 wins decisively in Geekbench OpenCL with a 32.1% lead, and in Geekbench Vulkan with a 20% lead. It also takes Passmark DirectX 12 by 22.5%, Passmark G3D by 1.6%, and Passmark GPU Compute by 1%. These wins cluster around newer APIs and general 3D performance, which points to the Turing architecture's strengths in compute-heavy and modern rendering paths.

The Quadro P4000, by contrast, wins the older DirectX tests: DirectX 9 by 2.2%, DirectX 10 by 7.6%, and DirectX 11 by 8.1%. It also edges out the GTX 1660 in Passmark G2D by 1.3% and in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 by 4.5%. The G2D win is notable because it indicates the Quadro's strength in 2D and desktop composition workloads, which are often secondary concerns for gaming-focused cards.

Looking at the aggregate scores, the GTX 1660 posts an average benchmark score of 11,680 against the Quadro P4000's 9,665, a gap that reflects the GTX 1660's stronger showing in the heavier compute tests. However, the Quadro P4000 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1660 sits at the 51st, so both cards occupy the middle of the performance distribution. The nearest rivals for each card are instructive: the GTX 1660 trades blows with the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (0.5% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (1.3%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (-1.4%). The Quadro P4000 sits within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 and within 0.3% of the NVIDIA Quadro K5000.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and different process nodes. The GeForce GTX 1660 uses the TU116 chip built on Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro P4000 uses the GP104 chip built on Pascal architecture, also from TSMC but on a 16 nm process. The GTX 1660 belongs to the GeForce 16 generation, while the Quadro P4000 belongs to the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation.

The transistor counts and die sizes show an interesting inversion. The Quadro P4000 has more transistors at 7,200 million versus 6,600 million for the GTX 1660, and a larger die at 314 mm² versus 284 mm². However, the GTX 1660 has a higher transistor density at 23.2M per mm² compared to 22.9M per mm², a direct consequence of the smaller 12 nm process.

The compute configurations differ substantially. The Quadro P4000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The GTX 1660 has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Despite having fewer cores, the GTX 1660 achieves comparable or better performance in many tests because of its higher clock speeds and architectural efficiency. The GTX 1660 runs at a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz, while the Quadro P4000 runs at 1202 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost. The clock advantage is substantial, roughly 27% at base and 21% at boost.

Memory configurations also differ. The GTX 1660 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 192.1 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 243.3 GB/s. The Quadro's memory system is clearly the more capable one, with 31 GB/s more bandwidth and 2 GB more capacity. The GTX 1660's memory runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the Quadro P4000's runs at 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective), but the wider bus compensates for the lower clock.

Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both are limited to traditional rasterization and compute workloads. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 1660's FP16 throughput is listed at 10.05 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Quadro P4000's FP16 is just 82.88 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, a massive difference that explains the GTX 1660's OpenCL advantage. FP32 performance is closer: 5.027 TFLOPS for the GTX 1660 versus 5.304 TFLOPS for the Quadro P4000.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single delta in the entire suite is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 1660 scores 47,850 against the Quadro P4000's 36,212, a 32.1% lead. This is the clearest signal that the GTX 1660's compute architecture, with its 2:1 FP16 ratio, handles OpenCL workloads far better than the Pascal-based Quadro. The GTX 1660 also wins Geekbench Vulkan by 20%, scoring 50,137 to 41,786, which reinforces the pattern of Turing being stronger in modern API environments.

The DirectX 12 test shows a similar story. The GTX 1660 scores 49 to the Quadro P4000's 40, a 22.5% advantage. This is the second-largest delta in the suite and confirms that the GTX 1660's architectural improvements translate into better performance on the latest Microsoft graphics API. The GTX 1660 also wins Passmark G3D by 1.6% (11,646 to 11,466) and Passmark GPU Compute by 1% (4,963 to 4,913), though these margins are narrow enough to be considered statistical noise.

The Quadro P4000's wins are concentrated in the older DirectX versions. Its largest win is DirectX 11 at 8.1%, scoring 86 to the GTX 1660's 79. It also wins DirectX 10 by 7.6% (66 to 61) and DirectX 9 by 2.2% (181 to 177). These results suggest the Pascal architecture retains an edge in legacy API paths, possibly due to driver optimization priorities for professional workloads that still rely on older DirectX versions.

In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the Quadro P4000 wins by 4.5%, scoring 1,115 to the GTX 1660's 1,065. This is interesting because it is a DirectX 12 test, yet the Quadro wins there while losing the Passmark DirectX 12 test by 22.5%. The discrepancy likely reflects different workload characteristics within the same API. The Quadro P4000 also wins Passmark G2D by 1.3% (786 to 776), a minor but consistent edge in 2D rendering.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 is substantially faster, scoring 47,850 in Geekbench OpenCL against the Quadro P4000's 36,212, a 32.1% advantage. The GTX 1660's FP16 throughput of 10.05 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio far exceeds the Quadro P4000's 82.88 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio.

Q: How do the two cards compare in legacy DirectX performance?

A: The Quadro P4000 leads in DirectX 9 by 2.2%, DirectX 10 by 7.6%, and DirectX 11 by 8.1%. The GTX 1660 wins DirectX 12 by 22.5%. The split suggests the Quadro retains an edge in older API paths while the GTX 1660 dominates the modern one.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1660 has 6 GB on a 192-bit bus with 192.1 GB/s. The Quadro P4000 offers both higher capacity and higher bandwidth.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The GTX 1660 has an average benchmark score of 11,680, while the Quadro P4000 averages 9,665. The GTX 1660 sits at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, and the Quadro P4000 at the 47th.

Q: Do either of these cards support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No, neither card has RT cores or tensor cores listed in the database. Both are traditional rasterization and compute GPUs.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The GTX 1660 runs at 1530 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost, while the Quadro P4000 runs at 1202 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost. The GTX 1660's higher clocks help offset its lower core count.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every major specification except for a few shared traits. Both are manufactured by TSMC, both use PCIe 3.0 x16, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both are end-of-life products. Beyond those commonalities, the differences are extensive.

The process node differs: the GTX 1660 uses 12 nm, the Quadro P4000 uses 16 nm. Transistor count favors the Quadro P4000 at 7,200 million versus 6,600 million, as does die size at 314 mm² versus 284 mm². Transistor density favors the GTX 1660 at 23.2M per mm² versus 22.9M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the GTX 1660 in both base and boost: 1530 MHz and 1785 MHz versus 1202 MHz and 1480 MHz. Memory clocks also favor the GTX 1660 at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective), but the Quadro P4000 has the wider 256-bit bus and more memory: 8 GB versus 6 GB. Memory bandwidth favors the Quadro P4000 at 243.3 GB/s versus 192.1 GB/s.

The compute units favor the Quadro P4000 across the board: 1,792 shading units versus 1,408, 112 TMUs versus 88, and 64 ROPs versus 48. Pixel rate is higher on the Quadro at 94.72 GPixel/s versus 85.68 GPixel/s, and texture rate is also higher at 165.8 GTexel/s versus 157.1 GTexel/s. FP32 favors the Quadro P4000 at 5.304 TFLOPS versus 5.027 TFLOPS, but FP16 massively favors the GTX 1660 at 10.05 TFLOPS versus 82.88 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications differ as well. The GTX 1660 has a TDP of 120 W, is dual-slot, and uses a 1x 8-pin power connector. The Quadro P4000 has a TDP of 105 W, is single-slot, and uses a 1x 6-pin connector. Both suggest a 300 W power supply. The GTX 1660 measures 229 mm long and 35 mm wide, while the Quadro P4000 measures 241 mm long with no width recorded. Both are 111 mm high. Display outputs differ: the GTX 1660 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro P4000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

The release dates are far apart. The Quadro P4000 launched on 2017-02-05, while the GTX 1660 launched on 2019-03-13. The launch MSRP for the GTX 1660 was 219 USD, and the Quadro P4000's launch MSRP was 815 USD. The GTX 1660's predecessor is the GeForce 10 series and its successor is the GeForce 20 series. The Quadro P4000's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta.