NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 are both Kepler-generation parts from 2012, but they target entirely different workloads. The data shows the Quadro K5000 takes a commanding lead in two of three benchmark tests, while the GTX 660 edges ahead in the third. The average benchmark scores tell the story: the Quadro K5000 posts 9,637 versus 9,022 for the GTX 660, a gap of roughly 6.8% overall, placing the Quadro in the 46th percentile of all GPUs and the GTX 660 in the 45th.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single victory for the Quadro K5000 comes in the Geekbench Metal test, where it scores 6,324 against 4,305 for the GTX 660. That is a delta of 46.9%, meaning the Quadro is nearly half again as fast in this API. This is a decisive margin, not a marginal one. It reflects the Quadro’s substantially higher shading-unit count and memory bandwidth, which translate directly into Metal compute workloads.

The OpenCL test is far closer. The Quadro K5000 scores 11,418, while the GTX 660 scores 11,347. The delta is a razor-thin 0.6% in favor of the Quadro. For practical purposes, these two cards are effectively tied in OpenCL performance. The difference of 71 points is well within run-to-run variance for most workloads. This suggests that the GTX 660, despite having fewer shading units and lower memory bandwidth, can match the Quadro when the workload is well-suited to its higher clock speeds.

The Vulkan test is the only one the GTX 660 wins outright. It scores 11,415 against 11,169 for the Quadro K5000, a delta of -2.2% (negative, meaning the Quadro loses). The 246-point margin is modest but real. This result flips the expected hierarchy: the cheaper consumer card outperforms the professional workstation card in this particular API. Interestingly, the GTX 660’s Vulkan score (11,415) is nearly identical to its OpenCL score (11,347), while the Quadro’s Vulkan score (11,169) is slightly lower than its OpenCL result (11,418). The GTX 660 appears more consistent across these two APIs.

Looking at the broader context, the Quadro K5000’s average benchmark score of 9,637 places it just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645) and 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653). It is 0.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665) and 0.8% behind the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9,716). The GTX 660’s average of 9,022 sits 0.2% behind the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition (9,037) and 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 (9,058), while leading the AMD Radeon 550X (8,918) by 1.2% and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863) by 1.8%.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro K5000 wins the head-to-head with two victories out of three, and the one loss is by a narrow margin. The 46.9% Metal advantage is the single most decisive result in this comparison, dwarfing the GTX 660’s 2.2% Vulkan win. For anyone working primarily in Metal-based applications, the Quadro K5000 is the clear choice, provided the workload justifies its professional positioning.

However, the GTX 660 is not without merit. In OpenCL, the two cards are statistically indistinguishable, with the Quadro leading by only 0.6%. In Vulkan, the GTX 660 leads by 2.2%. This means that for compute workloads that favor OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX 660 delivers comparable performance to the Quadro K5000. The GTX 660 also carries a lower TDP (140 W versus 122 W for the Quadro, though that is the Quadro’s advantage), a smaller die (221 mm² versus 294 mm²), and fewer transistors (2,540 million versus 3,540 million), which historically correlates with lower manufacturing cost.

The verdict depends on the application mix. If the user runs Metal-based software, the Quadro K5000 is the only rational pick given the 46.9% lead. If the user runs OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the GTX 660 offers essentially the same performance at a fraction of the transistor count and die size. The Quadro’s 4 GB memory versus 2 GB on the GTX 660, however, could be decisive for large datasets that exceed 2 GB, even if the raw compute scores are close.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the Kepler architecture and manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The foundry and process node are identical. The key architectural difference lies in the chip itself. The Quadro K5000 uses the GK104 chip, which contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The GTX 660 uses the GK106 chip, which contains 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. This gives the Quadro a higher transistor density of 12.0M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm² for the GTX 660.

The Quadro K5000 has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The GTX 660 has 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units. This is a significant difference: the Quadro has 60% more shading units, 60% more TMUs, and 33% more ROPs. These resources translate into higher theoretical peak rates. The Quadro achieves 2.169 TFLOPS FP32, 90.37 GTexel/s, and 22.59 GPixel/s. The GTX 660 achieves 1.981 TFLOPS FP32, 82.56 GTexel/s, and 20.64 GPixel/s.

The GTX 660 compensates with higher clock speeds. Its base clock is 980 MHz with a boost of 1032 MHz, while the Quadro K5000 runs at a fixed 706 MHz for both base and boost. The GTX 660’s clocks are 38.8% higher at base and 46.2% higher at boost. This clock advantage closes much of the gap in raw throughput, though not fully — the Quadro still leads in every rate metric. The GTX 660 also has a faster memory clock: 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) for the Quadro. Yet the Quadro’s wider 256-bit bus versus 192-bit on the GTX 660 gives it higher total bandwidth: 172.8 GB/s versus 144.2 GB/s.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. Memory size is 4 GB on the Quadro K5000 versus 2 GB on the GTX 660. Memory bus width is 256-bit versus 192-bit. Memory bandwidth is 172.8 GB/s versus 144.2 GB/s. The Quadro has 1,536 shading units versus 960, 128 TMUs versus 80, and 32 ROPs versus 24. Pixel rate is 22.59 GPixel/s versus 20.64 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 90.37 GTexel/s versus 82.56 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 2.169 TFLOPS versus 1.981 TFLOPS.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Quadro runs at 706 MHz base and boost, while the GTX 660 runs at 980 MHz base and 1032 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) versus 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Transistor count is 3,540 million versus 2,540 million. Die size is 294 mm² versus 221 mm². Transistor density is 12.0M / mm² versus 11.5M / mm².

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The Quadro K5000 has a TDP of 122 W, while the GTX 660 has a TDP of 140 W. Both are dual-slot cards with a single 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The Quadro is longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus 241 mm (9.5 inches) for the GTX 660. The Quadro has a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the GTX 660 has no listed height. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GTX 660 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Display outputs differ: the Quadro offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 660 offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro’s launch MSRP was 2,499 USD; the GTX 660’s launch MSRP was 229 USD. The Quadro was released on 2012-08-16, the GTX 660 on 2012-09-05. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi and successor is Quadro Maxwell. The GTX 660’s predecessor is GeForce 500 and successor is GeForce 700.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Metal benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 wins decisively with a score of 6,324 versus 4,305 for the GTX 660, a 46.9% advantage.

Q: Is the GTX 660 faster in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the GTX 660 wins the Vulkan test with 11,415 against 11,169 for the Quadro K5000, a 2.2% margin.

Q: How close are the two cards in OpenCL performance?

A: They are nearly identical. The Quadro K5000 scores 11,418 and the GTX 660 scores 11,347, a difference of just 0.6%.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro K5000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 660 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Do both cards use the same architecture and process node?

A: Yes, both use the Kepler architecture and are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process node.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The GTX 660 runs at 980 MHz base and 1032 MHz boost, while the Quadro K5000 runs at 706 MHz for both base and boost.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K5000 wins in scenarios that demand raw compute throughput and large memory capacity. Its 46.9% Metal advantage makes it the only choice for Metal-based rendering, machine learning inference, or compute tasks that leverage Apple’s API. The 4 GB memory capacity versus 2 GB is critical for workloads that exceed 2 GB of working set — texture-heavy 3D scenes, large simulation grids, or multi-monitor professional visualization. The Quadro also wins on pixel rate (22.59 GPixel/s versus 20.64 GPixel/s) and texture rate (90.37 GTexel/s versus 82.56 GTexel/s), which benefits fill-rate-bound applications like complex shader effects or high-resolution compositing.

The GTX 660 wins in Vulkan-based workloads, where it leads by 2.2%. This makes it the better pick for Vulkan compute or Vulkan-rendered games that use this API. The GTX 660 also wins on clock speed — 980 MHz base and 1032 MHz boost versus 706 MHz — which can favor latency-sensitive or clock-bound tasks despite the Quadro’s higher theoretical throughput. The GTX 660 is also shorter at 241 mm versus 267 mm, which may fit in smaller chassis. Its lower transistor count (2,540 million versus 3,540 million) and smaller die (221 mm² versus 294 mm²) indicate a simpler part that historically runs cooler under the same cooling solution, though the Quadro’s TDP is lower at 122 W versus 140 W.

For OpenCL workloads, the choice is essentially a tie. The 0.6% Quadro advantage is negligible. Both cards will perform comparably, so the deciding factor should be memory capacity (Quadro’s 4 GB) or PCIe version (GTX 660’s PCIe 3.0 x16 versus Quadro’s PCIe 2.0 x16). The GTX 660’s PCIe 3.0 interface offers higher bandwidth to the host system, which can matter for data-transfer-heavy workloads. The Quadro’s dual DisplayPort 1.2 outputs versus the GTX 660’s single DisplayPort 1.2 output may also influence multi-monitor professional setups. Overall, the Quadro K5000 is the stronger card in two of three tests and holds the memory capacity advantage; the GTX 660 is the better Vulkan performer and has a faster host interface.