NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows two benchmark tests where both cards appear: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The results split almost evenly, with each card taking one victory. In OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 posts a score of 11,431 against the GTX 660's 11,347. That is a narrow 0.7% edge, a margin small enough that the two effectively trade blows in compute workloads that favor OpenCL. The Vulkan result is less forgiving: the GTX 660 scores 11,415 while the Quadro K2200 falls to 10,090, a deficit of 11.6%. This is the largest gap between the two in any shared metric, and it gives the GeForce card a clear win in Vulkan-based rendering or compute tasks.

Looking at the wider database context, the Quadro K2200 sits at the 49th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 10,761. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 at 10,804 (0.4% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 at 10,883 (1.1% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti at 10,690 (0.7% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S at 10,629 (1.2% lower). These deltas are all within a couple of percentage points, which places the Quadro K2200 in a tightly packed performance band. The GTX 660, by contrast, holds the 45th percentile with an average benchmark score of 9,022. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition at 9,037 (0.2% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 at 9,058 (0.4% higher), the AMD Radeon 550X at 8,918 (1.2% lower), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 at 8,863 (1.8% lower). The GTX 660's average is dragged down by its Vulkan score being absent from the average calculation, while the Quadro K2200's average benefits from having no Metal benchmark recorded.

The average benchmark score difference is notable: the Quadro K2200's 10,761 average is roughly 19% higher than the GTX 660's 9,022. However, the head-to-head tests tell a more nuanced story. In OpenCL, the Quadro's win is marginal at 0.7%, and in Vulkan the GTX 660 wins decisively. The overall average favors the Quadro because the GTX 660's additional Metal benchmark (4,305) pulls its mean downward, and the Vulkan score gap is not enough to offset the OpenCL closeness. The data suggests that neither card dominates outright; the winner depends heavily on the API used.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2200's single head-to-head win comes in OpenCL, where it edges out the GTX 660 by 0.7%. OpenCL is commonly used in professional compute environments, and the Quadro's 1,438.7 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while lower than the GTX 660's 1.981 TFLOPS, still manages to produce a higher score in this test. The GTX 660 wins in Vulkan by 11.6%, a much larger margin. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can expose raw hardware capabilities more directly, and the GTX 660's higher texture rate (82.56 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (20.64 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s) likely contribute to this advantage.

For use cases, the data points to the Quadro K2200 as the better choice for OpenCL-centric workloads, which often include scientific computing, image processing, or other professional applications that rely on this API. The GTX 660, with its Vulkan lead, is better suited to scenarios where Vulkan is the primary interface, such as modern gaming or Vulkan-based rendering pipelines. The GTX 660 also has a Metal benchmark score of 4,305, which the Quadro K2200 lacks entirely; on Apple platforms that use Metal, only the GTX 660 has recorded data. The Quadro K2200, on the other hand, has no Metal result, so its performance in that API is unmeasured in this database.

The percentile rankings reinforce the split. The Quadro K2200 at the 49th percentile sits above the GTX 660's 45th percentile, indicating that in the aggregate of all benchmark scores in the database, the Quadro tends to rank slightly higher. But the head-to-head Vulkan result shows a specific area where the GTX 660 pulls ahead substantially. Users prioritizing OpenCL performance would favor the Quadro; users prioritizing Vulkan performance would favor the GTX 660.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectures within NVIDIA's lineup. The Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture, with a generation listed as Quadro Kepler (Kx200), though the chip itself is Maxwell. The GTX 660 uses the GK106 chip on the Kepler architecture, from the GeForce 600 generation. Both are built on TSMC's 28 nm process, but the transistor counts differ significantly. The GTX 660 packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the Quadro K2200 has 1,870 million transistors on a smaller 148 mm² die. The transistor density is slightly higher on the Quadro at 12.6M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm² on the GTX 660.

The GTX 660 has more raw compute resources: 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs, compared to the Quadro K2200's 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This explains the GTX 660's higher texture fill rate of 82.56 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s, and its higher pixel rate of 20.64 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s. The FP32 performance also favors the GTX 660 at 1.981 TFLOPS against the Quadro's 1,438.7 GFLOPS. Despite this hardware advantage, the GTX 660 only wins one of the two shared benchmarks, which suggests that driver optimizations, API implementation, or memory configuration play a role.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 660 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 144.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 660's memory clock is also higher at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on the Quadro. The wider bus and faster memory give the GTX 660 a 79.8% bandwidth advantage, which is particularly relevant for texture-heavy workloads. The Quadro compensates with double the capacity, which can be important for large datasets or multi-application workflows.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The Quadro K2200 has a TDP of 68 W, requires no power connectors, and is a single-slot card with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 660 has a TDP of 140 W, requires one 6-pin connector, and is a dual-slot card with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Quadro is also shorter at 202 mm (8 inches) compared to the GTX 660's 241 mm (9.5 inches). The bus interface differs as well: the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16 while the GTX 660 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs favor the GTX 660 slightly with 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

API support is similar but not identical. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan versions differ: the Quadro K2200 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 660 supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The release dates are also far apart, with the GTX 660 launching on 2012-09-05 and the Quadro K2200 on 2014-07-21. The GTX 660 lists a launch MSRP of 229 USD. The production status for both is end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear but conditional recommendation. For users whose workloads rely on OpenCL, the Quadro K2200 is the stronger choice, albeit by a slim 0.7% margin in the head-to-head test. Its higher average benchmark score of 10,761 versus 9,022, its 49th percentile ranking versus 45th, and its lower power draw of 68 W versus 140 W make it the more efficient and slightly faster overall card in the database's aggregate metrics. The 4 GB memory capacity also provides more headroom for memory-intensive professional tasks compared to the GTX 660's 2 GB.

For users who prioritize Vulkan performance, the GTX 660 is the clear winner with an 11.6% advantage. Its higher shading unit count, texture rate, and memory bandwidth give it the raw hardware muscle that Vulkan can exploit. The GTX 660 also has a recorded Metal benchmark score, which the Quadro lacks, making it the only option of the two for Metal-based environments. The GTX 660's 192-bit bus and 144.2 GB/s bandwidth are significant assets in scenarios where memory throughput is the bottleneck.

The verdict from the recorded data is that the Quadro K2200 is the better all-around card for OpenCL-centric professional workloads and for users who value lower power consumption and higher memory capacity. The GTX 660 is the better choice for Vulkan-based applications and for users who need Metal support. Neither card dominates the other comprehensively, and the choice should hinge on the specific API and workload profile. The Quadro K2200's higher percentile ranking and average score make it the safer default, but the GTX 660's Vulkan lead is too large to ignore for Vulkan-focused users.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 wins in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 11,431 against the GTX 660's 11,347, a 0.7% difference.

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 wins in Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 11,415 against the Quadro K2200's 10,090, an 11.6% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Quadro K2200 has an average benchmark score of 10,761, while the GTX 660 has an average of 9,022. The Quadro ranks at the 49th percentile and the GTX 660 at the 45th percentile.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 660 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 144.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either card support Metal?

A: Only the GTX 660 has a recorded Metal benchmark score, which is 4,305. The Quadro K2200 has no Metal benchmark data in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Quadro K2200 has a TDP of 68 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 660 has a TDP of 140 W with one 6-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |

| Chip | GM107 | GK106 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx200) | GeForce 600 |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1046 MHz | 980 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 1032 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 144.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 960 |

| TMUs | 40 | 80 |

| ROPs | 16 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 17.98 GPixel/s | 20.64 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.96 GTexel/s | 82.56 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,438.7 GFLOPS | 1.981 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 68 W | 140 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 202 mm (8 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2012-09-05 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 229 USD |