
GeForce GTX 1660 vs Quadro P4000

GeForce GTX 1660
Popular choices:

Quadro P4000
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Quadro P4000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1660 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce GTX 1660 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro P4000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1660 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.8% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro P4000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1660 | Quadro P4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.8%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.8%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | 🎮 High Capacity (6 GB) | ✅ More VRAM (+33.3%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1660 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $180 versus $290 for the Quadro P4000, it costs 38% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 64% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1660 | Quadro P4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+64%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($180) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($290) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1660 and Quadro P4000

GeForce GTX 1660
The GeForce GTX 1660 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 14 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1530 MHz to 1785 MHz. It has 1408 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 120W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 11,639 points. Launch price was $219.

Quadro P4000
The Quadro P4000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 6 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1202 MHz to 1480 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 105W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 11,431 points. Launch price was $815.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1660 scores 11,639 and the Quadro P4000 reaches 11,431 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1660 is built on Turing while the Quadro P4000 uses Pascal, both on 12 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 1,408 (GeForce GTX 1660) vs 1,792 (Quadro P4000). Raw compute: 5.027 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1660) vs 5.304 TFLOPS (Quadro P4000). Boost clocks: 1785 MHz vs 1480 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1660 | Quadro P4000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 11,639+2% | 11,431 |
| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 1408 | 1792+27% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.027 TFLOPS | 5.304 TFLOPS+6% |
| Boost Clock | 1785 MHz+21% | 1480 MHz |
| ROPs | 48 | 64+33% |
| TMUs | 88 | 112+27% |
| L1 Cache | 1.4 MB+112% | 0.66 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB | 2 MB+33% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1660 | Quadro P4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1660 comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro P4000 has 8 GB. The Quadro P4000 offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 192-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (GeForce GTX 1660) vs 2 MB (Quadro P4000) — the Quadro P4000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1660 | Quadro P4000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB | 8 GB+33% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 192-bit | 256-bit+33% |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB | 2 MB+33% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (GeForce GTX 1660) vs 12.0 (Quadro P4000). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.0. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1660 | Quadro P4000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3+30% | 1.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+2% | 4.5 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: 7th Gen NVENC (GeForce GTX 1660) vs 6th Gen NVENC (Quadro P4000). Decoder: 5th Gen NVDEC vs PureVideo HD VP8. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1660) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Quadro P4000).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1660 | Quadro P4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 7th Gen NVENC | 6th Gen NVENC |
| Decoder | 5th Gen NVDEC | PureVideo HD VP8 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1660 draws 120W versus the Quadro P4000's 105W — a 13.3% difference. The Quadro P4000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 450W (GeForce GTX 1660) vs 500W (Quadro P4000). Power connectors: 8-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 241mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1660 | Quadro P4000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 120W | 105W-13% |
| Recommended PSU | 450W-10% | 500W |
| Power Connector | 8-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 241mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C-6% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 97.0 | 108.9+12% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1660 launched at $219 MSRP and currently averages $180, while the Quadro P4000 launched at $815 and now averages $290. The GeForce GTX 1660 costs 37.9% less ($110 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 64.7 (GeForce GTX 1660) vs 39.4 (Quadro P4000) — the GeForce GTX 1660 offers 64.2% better value. The GeForce GTX 1660 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2017).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1660 | Quadro P4000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $219-73% | $815 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $180-38% | $290 |
| Performance per Dollar | 64.7+64% | 39.4 |
| Codename | TU116 | GP104 |
| Release | March 14 2019 | February 6 2017 |
| Ranking | #231 | #239 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















