Radeon RX 6900 XT vs GRID K160Q

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GRID K160Q with Radeon RX 6900 XT, including specs and performance data.

GRID K160Q
2013, $125
1 GB DDR3, 130 Watt
1.50
RX 6900 XT
2020, $999
16 GB GDDR6, 300 Watt
63.67
+4145%

6900 XT outperforms K160Q by a whopping 4145% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking103737
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.1427.23
Power efficiency0.9016.54
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameGK107Navi 21
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date28 June 2013 (13 years ago)28 October 2020 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$125 $999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RX 6900 XT has 19350% better value for money than GRID K160Q.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1925120
Core clock speed850 MHz1825 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2250 MHz
Number of transistors1.27 billion26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt300 Watt
Texture fill rate13.60720.0
Floating-point processing powerno data23.04 TFLOPS
ROPs16128
TMUs16320
Ray Tracing Coresno data80
L0 Cacheno data1.3 MB
L1 Cache16 KB1 MB
L2 Cache256 KB4 MB
L3 Cacheno data128 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
WidthIGP3-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 8-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed891 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.51 GB/s512.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.5 (5.1)6.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.1
Vulkan1.2.1751.3
CUDA3.0-

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

GRID K160Q 1.50
RX 6900 XT 63.67
+4145%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GRID K160Q 628
Samples: 7
RX 6900 XT 26637
+4142%
Samples: 8440

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD4−5
−98%
199
1440p3−4
−97.8%
137
4K2−385
+4150%

Cost per frame, $

1080p31.255.02
+83.9%
1440p41.677.29
+82.5%
4K62.5011.75
+81.2%
  • RX 6900 XT has 84% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX 6900 XT has 82% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX 6900 XT has 81% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 190−200 190−200
Counter-Strike 2 300−350 300−350
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 160−170

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 190−200 190−200
Battlefield 5 195 195
Counter-Strike 2 300−350 300−350
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 160−170
Far Cry 5 190−200 190−200
Fortnite 300−350 300−350
Forza Horizon 4 283 283
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 350−400 350−400

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 190−200 190−200
Battlefield 5 196 196
Counter-Strike 2 300−350 300−350
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 160−170
Dota 2 160−170 160−170
Far Cry 5 190−200 190−200
Far Cry 6 170−180 170−180
Fortnite 300−350 300−350
Forza Horizon 4 279 279
Grand Theft Auto V 160−170 160−170
Metro Exodus 164 164
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 323 323
Valorant 350−400 350−400

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 197 197
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 160−170
Dota 2 160−170 160−170
Far Cry 5 190−200 190−200
Forza Horizon 4 248 248
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 164 164
Valorant 411 411

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 300−350 300−350

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 190−200 190−200
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 500−550 500−550
Far Cry 6 130−140 130−140
Grand Theft Auto V 130−140 130−140
Metro Exodus 102 102
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 450−500 450−500

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 196 196
Cyberpunk 2077 90−95 90−95
Far Cry 5 160−170 160−170
Forza Horizon 4 231 231
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 150−160 150−160

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 150−160

4K
High

Atomic Heart 55−60 55−60
Counter-Strike 2 85−90 85−90
Far Cry 6 80−85 80−85
Grand Theft Auto V 150−160 150−160
Metro Exodus 67 67
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 122 122
Valorant 300−350 300−350

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 134 134
Counter-Strike 2 85−90 85−90
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 40−45
Dota 2 150−160 150−160
Far Cry 5 100−110 100−110
Forza Horizon 4 162 162
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 95−100

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80 75−80

This is how GRID K160Q and RX 6900 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 6900 XT is 4875% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6900 XT is 4467% faster in 1440p
  • RX 6900 XT is 4150% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.50 63.67
Recency 28 June 2013 28 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 300 Watt

GRID K160Q has 57% lower power consumption.

RX 6900 XT, on the other hand, has a 4145% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K160Q in performance tests.

Be aware that GRID K160Q is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6900 XT is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


No user ratings yet.

Rate GRID K160Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 4499 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6900 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GRID K160Q or Radeon RX 6900 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.